Douzet model theory; Sauniere had a model produced which does not correspond to an actual site in Jerusalem but, instead, a site in the Opoul Perillos region.
"Facts" cited to support this theory;
1) No such landscape exists in Jerusalem
2) There are not two separate tombs in the Holy Sepulchre site, one called the tomb of Joseph of Aramathea and another called the tomb of Jesus/Christ and therefore that Sauniere had a model made which goes against his very religion.
3) That Sauniere specified actual places in the Perillos region in letters to the model maker
4) That a landscape exists in the Perillos region which matches the inverse of the model
Demolition 1) Well, as the label on the model says, the area depicted is the Holy Sepulchre in its original state, ie: how it looked at the time of the crucifixion. Since that area was purposely modified to accommodate the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, it is not at all surprising that the topography does not match the "original state" model. Shown below is an image depicting two models, one identical to Sauniere's aside from the lack of labels and a second depicting the same site after modified for the church. This image was published in 1979, 16 years prior to Douzet's acquisition of Sauniere's model. I can supply the name of the book but since it is specified in Douzet's own book about the model I'll simply use his book as the reference, which you can find the image and book details in yourself at the Google Books website. Quite obviously, such a landscape DOES exist in Jerusalem, though in a modified state as compared to the Sauniere original state model. Obviously, the original topography depiction must be based on what remains today and descriptions from the Bible. In other words, an educated reconstruction based on available facts. Sadly, no time machines, so there may be some variations with the actual appearance in the time of Jesus.
Demolition 2) Yes there are two separate tombs, one called the tomb of Joseph of Aramathea and the other called the tomb of Jesus. It really doesn't require much explanation. Anyone can easily research the Holy Sepulchre and find diagrams showing the locations of both, exactly as depicted on Sauniere's model. I'll make it even easier for you. Here's a web page with a diagram and the tombs clearly marked; http://www.planetware.com/map/jerusalem ... olysep.htm
Demolition 3) No such specifications have ever been shown to actually exist. I really don't have to disprove something the existence of which has never been evidenced by anything other than the word of Andre Douzet. Common sense tells us that if there was really a tomb of Jesus in Perillos and Sauniere told the model maker exactly where it was, he'd have to kill him after the model was completed. There are no reports of such a murder.
Demolition 4) Ditto about it being based only on Douzet's word. I'll let you calculate the odds yourself against an actual place existing which is a perfect inverse of the Holy Sepulchre site. I think we'll need a little more than Douzet's word to counteract those odds. Of course, the tombs would have to be on the inside of a bowl shaped depression in the ground to be the inverse of the Holy Sepulchre topography. Could have a few flooding problems there, I would think. Basically, the tombs would be in a small lake.