Arcadia Discussion Zone

I got it Sheila, thanks---Bill

I am having a little trouble with some of Irmines quotes here, so I am asking this as a question?

1. according to to the text the excursion began on June 24, within the text it says at "6:15 am: the heavy mass of the train rattled and shook, station followed station... At what time had they actually left to begin the excursion, could it have been June 24, and they arrived at Couiza on the 25th.?

2. The old route did not pass the chateau of the Joyeuse family... How many routes could there have been to walk 2.5 miles?
there is evidence of an older road that leaves the paved road and reaches Rennes from the North side.

3. The date on the stone, has anybody seen this?

4. The tower of recent construction, if stairs did not exist would there not be a ladder for construction purposes? climbing such a ladder would not be allowed today, but 1905?

5. Couiza is not visible from the tower... I have used the hell out of "google earth", both from the tower and from Couiza, and it looks to me like they are visible from each other. Am I wrong, who has been there?

6. Was the drawing of how the stone should have looked intact?

7. ??

8. I don't know what this could mean, but in light of the other questions this seems somewhat unimportant. Is it even the same stone?

Can anybody who has been there add anything to help clarify?---Bill

Couiza is almost entirely hidden from Tour Magdala, due to Rocque Fumade getting in the way! However there are clear views of both Esperaza and Montazels.

Couiza is almost entirely hidden from Tour Magdala, due to Rocque Fumade getting in the way! However there are clear views of both Esperaza and Montazels.[/quote]


You say "almost" entirely hidden. The statement from Tisseyre is "There was Antugnac, Montazels and Couiza with, even further to the right, Coustaussa and its ruined castle."... Would you say there is any truth in this at all, a little bit, or none at all?
Irmine is saying this helps prove the excursion did not take place, what do you think, Pilrig?

You say "almost" entirely hidden. The statement from Tisseyre is "There was Antugnac, Montazels and Couiza with, even further to the right, Coustaussa and its ruined castle."... Would you say there is any truth in this at all, a little bit, or none at all?
Irmine is saying this helps prove the excursion did not take place, what do you think, Pilrig?[/quote]

Going from memory you can see outlying houses of Couiza but most of it is obscured by the Roque Fumade. Coustaussas Castle would be obscured by the belvedere and the trees in the Domaine garden.

No trees in the Domaine at the time, but then there's the belvedere....

Hi Bill - Some thoughts on a couple of your questions; nothing very illuminating, I'm afraid, just a few comments.



No, it can only be a mistake in the transcription, either accidental or deliberate. The text later describes walking up the hill to RLC from Couiza, and arriving there at around 0930 hrs, after a walk of about an hour, therefore departing that town at around 0830 hrs. Allow a bit of tarrying about time from when they arrived, for example, joining up with the mayor, who accompanied them on their visit, and you'd be looking at an arrival at Couzia railway station at, say, 0745-ish. That sounds about right for a train journey from Carcassonne in those days.



I think that's quite plausible. They started work on that tower in, I think, 1903, but work went quite slowly due to money issues. But by the summer of 1905, given it was fully completed in 1906, it's not at all inconceivable that the tower could have been "topped out" (built to full height) by then, but unfinished inside, perhaps. You generally finish constructing the building envelope, before you start work on its interior spaces, so it's not at all unreasonable to assume that the outer structure itself would have been complete by then, and equipped with a ladder for the builders.

As an aside, I'm actually not at all sure that climbing such a ladder wouldn't be allowed today, in France at any rate, where they seem to have a refreshingly laissez-faire attitude to 'elf and safety. But in 1905, it certainly wouldn't have been a problem. Your argument makes a lot of sense to me.



As per what Pilrig said, with regards to looking at Couiza from that part of the village. I wasn't so sure about Coustaussa, which you can certainly (I think, from memory) see from the orangery at the other end of the belevedere, but maybe not from the Tour. I'll go with what Pilrig said on that, too.

Anyway, I wonder if the writer isn't just using a bit of poetic licence here, or even if his memory is confused, assuming he wasn't all that well aquainted with the locale. He may be accidentally conflating in his mind two separate views, or else slightly disingenuously rolling up all of his commentary on the spectacular view from the village into one piece of narrative. Or it could just be lazy writing. Reading through the piece, the party goes twice to the chateau, once on arrival, and then again for a luncheon. Perhaps the writer also looked at a view from one of the chateau towers, from where I presume one would have a very good view of both Couiza and Coustaussa.

A couple of other thoughts.

I was interested that the writer sought fit to mention the neighbouring hill of Casteillas, which tends to be little mentioned.

If he thought the chateau looked "delapidated" (from the English translation) in 1905, one rather dreads to think what it must be like in there now, sumptuously beautiful though it looks from the outside.

Also, I was a little confused by what walking route they would have taken from Couiza (and at a very good pace, by the sounds of it, given that it's all uphill) and the mention of "ancient surrounding walls or fortifications, of which only a few sections still remained" (again, that's from the English translation). I'd assumed that they would have gone by the most direct route, up to the outer elevation of the belevedere, where there is still a footpath. I've only been halfway along it - from RLC - and don't recall much in the way of old walling, if any, though it is quite overgrown round there. There are sections of walling on the south side, though personally I see these as more likely terracing for agricultural purposes, rather than fortifications. Anyway, a small point, but it slightly intrigued me.

I haven't read that piece for years, and it was nice to do so again, though there do seem to be some anomalies, as has been mentioned. They certainly packed a lot into their day, and it sounds like fun - a real "excursion", in the proper sense of the word.

Thanks to both of you, richard and Pilrig, I sent an e-mail to the Societe d' Etudes people, asking if they could shed light on the controversy. I don't remember who, but someone had said, you can't get this particular bulletin. I noticed there are none of them available prior to 1913, but the 1913 volume is number 24, while the 1906, according to the report is number 17, both 1906 and 17 being 7 years earlier. That probably doesn't mean much, but a point nonetheless. As for the ladder richard, it would not be allowed here on a construction project, OSHA and all, but I am sure you are correct about 1905.---Bill

have a look in my "A Few Panoramas" there is a panorama taken from the terrace walking towards the tower. I don't know if that gives any hints at the view or lack thereof of Couiza. Unfortunately the access I have here does not allow me to view imageshack hosted pics. I honestly can't remember seeing Couiza from the tower

I'm fairly certain you cant see Couiza from the Tour...cos I was a bit miffed that we couldn't see our digs (situated across the road from the RLC road/rue Pyrenees junction) from the Tour. But Richard mentioned the Orangery and am similarly certain you get a good view of Coustaussa and the Camp Grand slopes from there.
And you can see the Tour Magdala from across the road from Sauniere's birthplace in Montazels. Mind you the view from RLC is from memory but I think I can trust it.

Since yesterday, I have spent several hours looking at various panoramic views, Davinho's, as well as many others. I know as you said you can see Montazels, to the left, and certainly the area just above Couiza, to the north. I question the part of a village that is in view just below Montazel, to the south, but yet on the north side of the Aude. I guess I would assume the river divides the two villages, which would make that section also Montazel. But as richard said, would a person who didn't know the area very well also may not have known where they separate. Of course we cannot be certain Tisseyre, was not familar with the area. The thing is, and this is what I am looking for, I don't see anything in the text that says hoax to me, at least not out loud. any opinions?---Bill

The thing is, some of those places along the Aude do kind of run into each other, and merge together a bit, though probably more so these days than in 1905, with various bits of out of town development and suchlike.

With regard to the Tisseyre account possibly being a hoax (what RLC related document isn't?!?), there do seem to be anomalies in it, but no smoking gun as such, I would say. Some of the errors could simply be mistakes, such as the view description (Item 5); or explainable, like ascending the scaffold of an uncompleted Tour Magdala (Item 4). And I also take your point with regard to Item 6 - the drawing may well be trying to show how the stone would have looked intact.

But who knows, as ever? Hopefully Irmine will return here at some point and offer some further thoughts.

Montazels is on the west side of the Aude, most of the village is up on the hillside in fact. Couiza is on the east bank of the Aude, though some modern houses are on the west. But the Couiza of Boudet's time would consist of the houses surrounding the church to the south of the Salz. So it seems to be the Couiza of Boudet's time would be hidden from the Tour Magdala.
What you CAN see from the Tour is the little square with the fountain in Montazels, overlooked by the house Sauniere was born in.

Bill, another thought I had, regarding sight lines round there, is that from down in the Aude valley, Rennes le Chateau is quite obscured, from most places. When you drive down it, from Carcassonne, there's only one point on the road from where it's visible for a few seconds, before getting obscured again by all the other topography. I thought of that when Pilrig said ...



... because that square in Montazels is one of the places from where you can see RLC. Except, when Sauniere was a child, playing by that fountain, I wonder if he would have seen it? Because what you see now is the tower and belvedere that he himself built, and which covers that part of the hillside. So I wonder if he would have been able to see the church, or the towers of the Hautpoul castle, back then? Or would they have been too far back, and out of his line of sight? Which isn't massively important, obviously, but I suppose I'd long had this image in my mind of Sauniere the child being in that square, and looking up at the village that would one day become his parish. Except I wonder if he would have seen any village at all, or just another piece of hillside.

the mythological fish
dolphin
thanks to paddy
The ancient Greek myth of Dionysus provides one of the earliest accounts of the special relationship that humans share with cetaceans, and goes some way towards explaining the affinity we feel towards dolphins in particular. Dionysus, the god of wine and ecstasy, was kidnapped by Etruscan pirates who mistook him for a wealthy prince capable of bringing them a hearty ransom. No sooner had the boat set sail with the captive Dionysus onboard than the god surrounded himself with tigers, lynxes and panthers and caused giant vines to grow up along the sides of the boat, the leaves wrapping themselves around the mast and rigging, and the oars became serpents. The pirates jumped overboard in their terror, yet as they floated in the sea Dionysus showed compassion for them. As he uttered the words “I will make you happy! In my heart, I honour you”, all the pirates were transformed into dolphins, never again to harm or do wrong, but instead to fulfil their destiny of helping those in need, and providing support and assistance when called upon.

Have you looked at the ancient Gold smelting mines and shafts in the area? That's what Rocque Fumade was named after. It doesn't really explain why Tisseyre wrote the excursion and especially in the manner he did, in fact you're more likely to keep chasing your tail. I think the Tisseyre article was designed for reasons other then obvious ones.

That was weird Wayward, your post disappeared but here is my reply anyways, Tisseryre wrote the article and was an accomplice of Sauniere and de Cherisey wrote the Sheperdess parchment. So they are not even in the same era - or for the same reasons.

As for Irmine rehashing the same old thing - well you should know by now - it's in "team Plantard's et al's" interest to keep the wrong mythology alive. I make the point there are significant other aspects that do have relevance. - Understanding codes, metallurgy etc... what does that sound like. Forcing a fortress over a temple.

Sorry rain, after reading my post I realized that it was the same old question. I do believe that Tisseryre could have been an accomplice of Sauniere. But it also seems as if the questionable excursion did take place. What I do not understand is, and it does seem to be what you are saying, is that de Cherisey wrote the shepherdess parchment as an anagram of the text on the stone in the Tisseyre article. This does not explain several things, 1: why would Tisseryre and Sauniere conspire to do this in the first place, 2: why would they include obvious errors in the text (the text of the stone), unless to help create the anagram, and 3: How could, de Cherisey, have created an anagram out of such an extended text, some 55 years later? It would seem to me that if the text was a hoax, then the shepherdess parchment text had to be created by the authors of the excursion text. Or if there was a tombstone, then the parchment could have been created by Sauniere without Tisseryre, perhaps with a little help from a few other players, Boudet, Hoffet, ect. All good questions I believe. IMHO, if the Societe d'Etudes scientifiques de I'Aude, would announce the excursion did or did not take place, that would seem to help answer some of the questions. I had read awhile ago that they had announced this but I don't know how reliable the source was.
One other point is that there seems to be a lot of conflicting information on all of this.

My RLC photos on photoshak or whatever it's called have disappeared so I'm going through the disk of our hol pix. I', looking at one of me near Coustaussa Castle with RLC up on the hill in the background and I can confirm Tour Magdala is hidden from view.

I just realised something, you're not taking the mapping of the underground very seriously.

Ok rain, I'll bite, what do you consider the mapping of the underground if its not Alpheus?

When Scotland was Jewish: DNA evidence, archeology, analysis of migrations ... By Elizabeth Caldwell Hirschman, Donald Neal Yates.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Op3c ... ok&f=false

For the Gold smelting it's mithraic. Alpheus is more to do with RLB then RLC or do you evidence otherwise? You refer to anagram based on stele/dalle that was manufactured and yet you don't refer to the wider puzzle of 128 piece cypher table.

Because you are looking different "mysteries" and you don't differentiate it's hard to give you any type of answer, I'm not baiting you, I'm just waiting for you to make yourself clear.

*Gold is a very soft metal - it's been suggested the Bull used as both torture and an oven (such as the case in Moloch) that composition of the ovens produce higher then average tempature -enough to work on other metals and alloys.

It`s amazing the amount of knowledge or confidence you have gained in the last 6 or so
months. I sure wish I had the time and fantastic resources you have. You go girl

and how many times did I tell you to listen in class and have respect... enough that you kept whining I was picking on you. Well, you're now seeing the payoff Crimson Ghost.