Arcadia Discussion Zone

Pathetic "defence" Pascal... If you call what you do a scientific investigation, and which appears to be based on what we put on the cover of books. Wow! That cover was done by the publisher, who took some photographs of our site. It's a bookcover, for crying out loud! Dear God...

Now if you want to argue that scientific research should be based on what people put on the cover of books... go ahead. You'll be laughed away.

We NEVER said 1632 is more important than any other version. Please find evidence where we say that...

Just stop your vendetta, is my advice. Especially, stop your distortions, for they will end up causing you trouble, just like that other person who is making tall claims about Perillos and who is now experiencing some problems with the French Gendarmes... an inhabitant of Opoul which we both know.

And now I REALLY consider this matter closed. I've got more important things to do. No doubt, Pascal, your children want to see their dad this weekend too.

Did I ? where ? I've just noticed that the register 1632 is more famous than the other and i tried to understand why...
Of course i know the other from 1624.



I don't know anyone who have/had problem with French Gendarmes because of Perillos or Douzet ! If you are talking about Jean-Louis (habitant of Opoul) everyone has to know that he never had problem and was never made in trouble. This legend is made by Douzet to afraid people. You should check your sources. Douzet lied to you one more time and you run after his back.

How someone as clever as you can continue to give credit to his shit ?
I wonder where is your interest...

Pascal

Right, ok, one FINAL message. But all things come in threes, it seems, and I don't have kids, so...

There you go again: jumping to conclusions.

You ASSUME it's Jean Louis. You then ASSUME something about that. You then BLAME Andre for spreading a lie - which is your THIRD-down the line conclusion based on something you THINK.
And you then BLAME me for falling for that lie. And you then WONDER whether I've got an agenda! Christ almightly! If I'm not mistaken that's five conclusions drawn from something you believe, yet you have no idea who I am talking about, that's clear... So apart from jumping to the wrong conclusions, you know next to nothing too!

I never said who it was, but you build up speculation upon speculation, and one thing on top of another. You do that with the tombs - like taking a photograph with no caption arguing it is tomb 2 - you do it with Courtade... what next?

Anyway, I think this sorry episode can be concluded now, not? No doubt there will be another one in six months or so.
But rather than constantly have a go at Andre, how about, perhaps in 6 months, Jean Louis will show us photographs of his cave? And of the "real treasure" that is there, according to you and he? And which his family has allegedly preserved for generations, and into which he was initiated as a young boy?
For let there be no doubt, for the Tims of this world, who seem to think Pascal is trying to claim the Perillos thing is all a fraud: though Pascal claims Andre is a fraud, he believes that there is a genuine treasure in Perillos, known by this Jean-Louis (whose wife is the former treasurer of the Societe Perillos, French side), Jean-Louis who also explored various things with Andre, like the glass ovens... The "only" thing Pascal believes is that Andre is pretending he knows the locations of two tombs, whereas Pascal believes Jean-Louis is the person who knows the locations of a very important site.
In short, what Pascal is saying: don't believe Andre, believe me. But Perillos is true either way.

But no doubt, Pascal, you will soon reveal to the world the entire POSITIVE truth of Perillos. And with positive I mean this: if you have something to show about Perillos and you think there is something there: show it. Stop your obsession with Andre. Just reveal what it is you want to tell the world. The POSITIVE thing you want to say, that is...

Enough said...

Well... Filip, you jump to quickly in your conclusions...
The only reason i assumed you were talking about Jean-Louis is because he is the only inhabitant of Opoul whose we both know (beside the Mayor). You said in your last post : an inhabitant of Opoul which we both know

I wonder why you torture yourself to find other reasons. Who else it could be ?



I don't believe anything Filip. I have demonstrated that Douzet have manipulated things and people to support his theories. I think all of that is pure hoax. (by the way JL'wife is not farmer treasurer of SP anymore since the time she has discovered how much she was manipulated by Douzet).



I have never ask people to believe me. Believe in what by the way ? Where did you find that ? I don't have any theory to support. I don't care about treasures, caves. I care about hoaxers.

Pascal

Ok, the absolutely final one:

We know LOTS of people of Opoul together, Pascal... don't be disingenious (again). To begin with: 2 mayors, not just one. Actually, it's one of those I was referring to... Quite amazed you don't know about that... Seems people who run the site www.perillos.com have got more info about opoul than those running the site www.opoul.com
Seeing it was made a point in the last elections, I am TRULY amazed!

As to you not promoting anything: from your site:

Un ami m'a confié la photo assez stupéfiante d'un bloc de pierre massif bouchant une cavité.

Le rocher façonné mesure environ 2 mètres de haut. Un beau bloc, certainement très lourd.

Que se cache-t-il dans cette cavité ?
Nul ne le sait...

Le mystère demeure car le secret de la localisation de cette merveille est bien gardé depuis plusieurs générations.

On sait que ce bouchon est situé dans le secteur d'Opoul-Périllos et que le secret se perpétue depuis deux siècles au minimum.

Anyway, now MORE than enough said... Seems like you're desperate to try to pretend that you had a point to make - however small it has now become - and that it is still legitimate to beat me with an invented stick.

Pascal, in English we refer to this as a "bait and switch"...

TCP

My english is not brillant but it seems that this sentence (above) doesn't concern something which happened year ago to the Major of Opoul as you said in the last post. would you insinuate that what happened to the Major is linked with Douzet or Périllos ? I wonder what he would say about that (the Major).

Nobody here, cares about gossips from in a little village in Southern France. Nobody cares. You do that often Filip! You change the thread to personal things which doesn't interest anyone.

Douzet's theory was standing up with :
- a circular stone (checked by myself to be a hoax)
- a vaguely hexagonal hole (checked by myself to be a hoax)
- a Saunières's "model" (origin : very suspicious)
- Courtade's registers (opportunity is now given to people to check it by themselves)
- an alleged entrance to a tomb in Caune's cave (checked by myself to be a hoax)
- knowledge of the localisation of a "royal or sacred" tomb (hoax)

THE TRUE ABOUT THE "BOUCHON"
On sait que ce bouchon est situé dans le secteur d'Opoul-Périllos et que le secret se perpétue depuis deux siècles au minimum.

This sentence is a short comment that you can find in my website opoul.com. This "thing" is a massive stone which plugs a cave. That is all what i know about it. I don't know what is inside.

An inhabitant of opoul knows where it is. And yes, the secret of the localisation is a kind of taboo in his family and yes he never trusted Douzet enough to show him this thing because he knew that Douzet would try to make money with it (he tried with the circular stone, remember).

He showed me the "thing".

I won't try to sell it, i won't make theories with this stuff, i won't make conference with this thing, i won't manipulate history to explain its presence or its nature. I just show pictures of it.

I don't pretend it is a grave or a tomb, or a treasure or Marie-Magdeleine's bathroom, no, i don't pretend anything about it.

If experts are able to demonstrate through a picture and description that this is the most important discovering of the century, maybe i will convince Jean-Louis that he should think about it. But you know what ? He is a free man.

Back to the Courtade...
Where is the missing page finally?

Pascal
PS : Filip try to talk about factual things and not about persons.

However, if we're speaking of a loose page, it could be attributed to either year. The page might be handled with some measure of credibility if it was linked to a register dated 1659 or later; however, whether 1624 or 1632, the questions are the same.

TCP

Since when does a reasoned line of questioning over "evidence" constitute distortion? And do I detect a veiled threat?

TCP

You are completely right. But according to his forum, Douzet will explain us all about the Courtade's registers NEXT WEEK. So, i'm very excited about that.

As far as this "Tim" is concerned, everything stands or falls on the veracity and authenticity of direct evidence. As you know, Filip, I have not been at all impressed with what Douzet has brought forward, or with the conclusions spun from it.

TCP

I would add to that list:

- fabricated genealogies (conflicting with archival records)

TCP

Next week. Not now, while the questions are being raised. Well, I look forward to Andre's explanation; it should edifying, as always.

TCP

Yes. And i could add other things if i had the time :

- Pretending there is a link between my experience "chronodrome" and Malraux (Minister of Culture and writter) through the satellite KEO.

That was the start of my suspicion about Douzet's mind. He tried to make links between things in a completely "surrealistic" way.

Sorry for the non-french readers but it is so funny i cannot resist to give you the link unfortunaly in french :

http://www.societe-perillos.com/malraux.html

And not by a graphologist who psychoanalyzes the loops and strokes of people's handwriting for entertainment, à la the notes in bottles found by Team Hammott. Graphologists are not trained in or licensed for forensic authentication.

TCP

You weren't seriously expecting anything, were you? Remember who we're dealing with here.

TCP

Maybe tomorow or this w-e ?

Let's see...

http://www.societe-perillos.com/courtade_1.html


I dont even know what the point of that article was. It says nothing except ridicule, and with a haughty attitude at that. But i guess they feel very wronged ....

All he had to do was post the last paragraph:

'... we prepare, by the force of the events, to present the page of a small register known as `of Courtade' on our site Société Périllos in order to prove that we indeed hold it contrary to our merry antagonists. This presentation will lie within the scope of a conference during which we will be able to show not only `the Courtade' file but also the formal evidence and official (in the form of a report of a member of the legal profession) of the existence of what we call “the ground zero” and which is none other than the circular closing of a cavity located by the model of Saunière … With this will be an enormous icing on the cake ....'

I suggest that the small page of the Courtade register (that proves their points etc) not be shown on the SP website, in a tiny picture that cannot be seen by anyone
And perhaps having the legal professional who wrote on the authenticity of the document stand up and say it at your conference

And, let me know when the conference is, i would love to attend to view it all for myself.

Douzet claims to have defaced the volume by inserting "signs" at various times, and on various pages (he says "in order to know when any copy was made);

I'm sorry, but that is enough to render the whole thing illegitimate.

If you mean that he is saying he has written in a bona fida medieval manuscript (for whatever reason) , then how can we ever believe what he says about loose pages? How do *I* know he hasnt added and inserted these?

Maybe i misunderstand??

If he has manipulated a genuine document ..... *sigh*

Not good, if you ask me.

But seeing as no one is asking me

Thanks Roger ....for the resume.

This amalgam of disparate documents is worthless without the small, 10 page "Annex", bound in fiber and encased in a rotting leather sleeve, dealing with the Perillos area;

How comes Douzet has this document in his 'safekeeping' anyway? I thought notary documents were kept by local governement agencies and such like?

So, if i wanted to consult them, i would go along and ask to see them. An individual would not be allowed to take these documents and keep them in their own house etc.

Is it different in France??

Par for the course for Mr. Douzet. It probably took him two weeks to come up with that sorry explanation.

TCP

Hi TCP

Am reading that book you recommended ...

Astounding. Douzet's desperation is evident reading between the lines.

TCP

Good! Have you got to the part about St. Vincent and the ravens?

TCP