Arcadia Discussion Zone

Bornholm churches animation

Why here on the Rennes le Chateau forum?

The Christiansø, Østerlars, Nylars line point directly at Rennes le Chateau.

Østerlars and Nylars are different from the other churches and look VERY similar to this:


Temple Church London

And these

It certainly hasn't been ignored by me. I think it's absolutely key to the whole thing. Unfortunately, I don't share your gift for textual and geometrical analysis, so I've only looked into this at a very superficial level, but what I have seen of it (as in the HL co-authored "Templars Secret Island" and the mid-1990s TV series he did for the Discovery Channel) I find very convincing and compelling. It's about the only truly verifiable thing in the whole damn mystery. I can't believe this isn't more widely known about. If nothing else, it shows that our ancestors were a lot more sophisticated than we give them credit for (I know, for example, that the island is covered in standing stones, so clearly this is a "holy place" from a very long way back). And the geometry - at least as much of it as my non-mathmatical brain can grasp - is quite beautiful in its complexity. So I, for one, will be delighted if this thread grows.

More please!

Yes I think the problem was best described by the late Jean Luc Robin when he said that Henry Lincoln is wrong by being right too soon.

A lot of people need to do some catching up.

Using a Google Earth image with tacks at RLC and that little island North of Bornholm I got a much different angle than the one shown in the animation. I got 32.9673233° SE from Bornholm to RLC whereas in the animation it's 40.89333465, assuming that's an accurate hexagram in the animation (line shown in blue in image below). The real angle is surprisingly close to 33 degrees though.

I think it needs to be a great circle bearing. I checked it using some software for radio aerial bearings.

You know fully well that it's meaningless to talk about a 'line' of that length (~ 1000 miles) "pointing directly" at anything on a spheroidal surface.


Regards,

David.

" "

The churches do seem to match the animation figures very well.

Greetings Weasel, hope you're well.

I've got to break some really bad news to you, and I know this will come as quite a shock so please brace yourself... oh, and *please* don't shoot the messenger! Here goes. Ready?... Jake, T H E....E A R T H....I S....N O T....F L A T. Yes, I know, you're going to dispute that, I fully understand. I really did not want to be the one to disabuse you -- a devout Flat Earther -- of a quaint and deeply cherished notion. However, I do not recommend that you cancel your membership with the particular Flat Earth Society to which you so earnestly contribute with your inane, utterly worthless paranoid-conspiracy-nutcase-garbage, because you'd be sorely missed by the Brethren, and I wouldn't want you to be deprived of so many like-minded friends.

Anyway, now that you are finally aware that the Earth is not flat (or do you still dispute that?), and is in fact an oblate spheroid, perhaps you'll now be better-placed to understand the rest of what I've written in this post. If not, then I'm sure you'll find some comfort in these links:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... ociety.htm




So, the assertion is essentially this: A straight line drawn between Østerlars Church and Nylars Church (on Bornholm), and which is then 'projected' southward passes somewhere close to or through the village of Rennes-le-Château. That, at face value at least, would seem quite astonishing.

To make things easier for myself, using fabulous Google Earth, I drew a straight line between Østerlars Church and Rennes-le-Château in order to see how close to the said line Nylars Church was. Are you with me so far, Weasel? See the diagram below (hope it's colourful enough for you -- lots of nice colours).





So, if I'm right, Nylars Church lies at 380 metres (give or take) from the Østerlars-RLC line. "Not too bad" I hear you struggle to think. Of course, constructing the line in this way is actually cheating and, as I mentioned to Roscoe, leads to a meaningless and illusory result since we're dealing with a highly distorted 2D representation of a 3D (spheroidal) surface.

What we have to do (so as not to cheat and ultimately delude ourselves) is to compute the precise forward azimuth from Østerlars Church to Nylars Church and then compute the projected point along that azimuth a distance of, say, 1,642,312 metres (approx. distance Østerlars Church to RLC Church) and see where the projected point ends up. It should be in or around RLC. Unfortunately, it's not. Very much not, in fact. See the diagram below:




The projected point lies some 28 miles northwest of RLC.

Sophisticated, high-precision ellipsoidal computation was used to obtain the position of the projected point, not fart-arsing about with 2D maps.

Now then Weasel, you're predictably going to say something really dumb like "Duh... but the ancients never had high-precision ellipsoidal computation" or words to that effect, but this - whilst true - would be missing the point entirely, as well as showcasing your own stupidity. The point is, RLC does not lie in the same 'direction' as the Østerlars-Nylars line as asserted by Roscoe, unless you believe an error of nearly 30 miles is acceptable.



Regards,

David.

30 miles eh? About Montségur then. Remembering of course that the Landscape Geometry is not specifically Rennes le Chateau Church.

So about a 2.5% error from the 12th century then?

I take it you know that Østerlars church is nearly a mile north of Østerlars village. So it's a long way for the congregation to trek don't you think?

I suspect that would be the kind of error you'd get if you didn't compensate for atmospheric refraction. I take it you know that when a stellar object is observed at the horizon it has actually set and if say the sun isn't descending vertically (which of course it never will do in Bornholm) then it will be offset horizontally by several degrees.

The capital of Bornholm is Rønne, the Bishop involved was a friend of Bernhard of Clairvaux. He who once said this:



Didn't Bernhard of Clairvaux have something to do with the Knights Templar Roger?

It is now generally accepted that the churches of Bornholm were in fact Astronomical Observatories converted into churches.

The island is covered with Dolmens and Menhirs as of course is the Languedoc.

There are 4500 stone megalith sites in France and counting. And particularly the Cromlech of Rennes-les-Bains

So....would this fit in with the Round Towers of Ireland & Scotland? Tall circular towers with small slit windows at the top, too small to be used for Fires or Beacons.

Yes, they'd even fit this:



The Tour d'Alchemie

And these, from my area of France, all dating from the 11th or 12th century.

Lanternes des Mortes......usage still unknown.

http://cfpphr.free.fr/inventaire.htm

An error of only 2.5% over such a vast distance still seems fairly remarkable to my layman's brain. To paraphrase Henry Lincoln, when explaining that the top of La Pique is a couple of hundred metres away from the centre of the pentacle of mountains : "How much of a miracle can you really expect?"

The point about Osterlars church being a mile from the village is also a good one, bringing to mind the odd placement of the castle at Arques, some way outside the village.

As is the one about the capital of Bornholm being Ronne, with its linguistic connection to Rennes le Chateau. I understand that Rennes in Brittany also has some form of geometric layout.

None of that is to diminish David's arguments and use of Google Earth technology, which was very interesting, as always. I just feel he might be being a mite harsh on those 12th century (if not earlier) surveyors.

Yes and here's another Lanternes des Mortes in England.



Westerton Tower Built by astronomer Thomas Wright of Shugborough Hall and Hodnet Church fame. He's the one that first realised that the Milky Way is caused by looking edge on to our Galaxy. He supported both Newton and Halley on their new theory of comets.

He also built a Mithraic Temple at Wrest Park owned by Philip Yorke, Lady Anson's (of Shugborough) brother. The Temple at Wrest Park also carries a cryptic message as does Shugborough of course.

Wright built "follies" all over England in Stately homes, which he described as "Universal Architecture".

Thomas Wright wrote this book.



Front and rear pages

The Roman numeral sequence is:

132 31 61 102 104 135 118 142 123 118 119 116
17 3 2 19 8 2 19 4 1 22 114 13


I'm currently looking at the geometric relationship of this tower to the Angel of the North

If I remember rightly (it's been a while since I looked at any Bornholm-related stuff), there are 15 churches on Bornholm, and this implies a total of 105 lines anchored between all possible pairs of churches:

15C2 = 15!/(2!(15-2)!) = 105

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination)

Given 105 lines pointing in effectively random directions, and given a fairly generous error tolerance of 28 miles, it doesn't seem all that unlikely to me that one of those 105 lines will, as it were, score a 'hit'. Admittedly, in this case, I opine largely from intuition and quite a bit of experience 'hunting' for geometrical alignments. A simple statistical study would probably demonstrate that the Osterlars-Nylars 'coincidence' isn't really all that remarkable, if at all.




It's actually about half a mile (not wishing to split hairs!). If you need convincing of this, don't hesitate to ask.




The difficulty I have with Roscoe's contention that the relative isolation of Osterlars church (from the village proper) is significant is that you can almost certainly find hundreds of other churches just as remote or isolated. Here's some results after a few minutes of searching courtesy of Google (all 'confirmed' using Google Earth):

All Saints, Ramsholt, Woodbridge, Suffolk (MIddle of nowhere)

St Mary’s Church, Church Street, Lower Higham, Kent ME3 7LR - England, UK

St. Mary Magdalene, Battlefield Church, Shrewsbury, Shropshire

St. John the Baptist, Highworth, Wiltshire

There are many more.





Interesting apparent connection. Does anyone here know what Ronne means? It may be that Rennes and Ronne are etymologically unrelated. In other words, "Ronne" may have nothing to do with the word "Queen".




I'm not sure what your views are as regards 'landscape geometry', but wouldn't it be a good idea to establish beyond reasonable doubt that any such 'survey' by medieval surveyors actually took place? I realise that some who frequent this forum have already irreversibly decided that such a survey did take place, and that no quality nor quantity of counterevidence will ever persuade them otherwise. Apart from the highly extrapolated and tenuous Bornholm geometry itself, what other independent evidence is there?

I seem to remember that some statisticians had debunked some (or all?) of the Bornholm geometry. I don't know how convincing the debunking was, but if you do a Google search I'm sure you'll find the relevant web pages.


Regards,

David.

The difference here from Rennes le Chateau is that not only do we have a recognised design in their positioning we have a recognised design in the construction of each of the churches. Basically Bornholm gives us an insight into how the churches were aligned.

The thing is that Bornholm and Rennes le Chateau are only a fraction of this phenomena. There are more sites and they all have one thing in common. They are covered with Dolmans and Menhirs.




It's actually just over 2000 feet from the village centre.




Indeed there are and they too need examining for possible ground patterns.



Oh there's a connection alright but this I'm keeping this under my hat until publication. But I can say this: It has nothing to do with the word for Queen.




Why Medieval? Watch out for the other evidence.



Well they would wouldn't they? Imagine my surprise?

Read what Professor Lind says

The French word Renne (m. orig. Scandanavian) means Reindeer, or Caribou.

Rennes comes from Redones, name of the Gaulish people.

I don't know how Mr. Williams got his line so wrong. I already showed the Google Earth image with the Osterlars/Nylars line in light blue and it is way further off from RLC than Williams' image suggests. Sure, I know there is some slight spherical distortion but it is so slight, with the image centered in the Google Earth screen like that, that it makes no significant difference at all. You can confirm this by simply using the ruler function to draw a line between Osterlars and RLC. If you put a straightedge on that line you can see that it is almost exactly straight. There's no way you could get within a mere 28 miles from RLC starting at an angle of 40.8933 SE from Osterlars, more like at least 100. Simply putting a protractor up to the screen I can see that Williams' line is only about 38.5 degrees SE.

I don't believe the two regions are linked geometrically, though they both have similar church connecting geometries. This seems like something that was limited to a line of sight basis.

Although there is no direct geometric connection between Bornholm and Languedoc, Bornholm does support the notion that the Templars had a penchant for positioning structures in geometric relationships. Fortunately, due to the flatness of Bornholm we have large enough scale examples of this and with such high precision that it is vastly more probable that that geometric relationships were purposely designed than simple chance occurrences. If it happened in Bornholm, and the preponderance of evidence indicates it did, it could also happen in France or Nova Scotia.

David - compared to you (and Roscoe and JB and others) my views on "landscape geometry", and doubtless much else besides, are fairly superficial and ill considered. Perhaps for that reason, I can see merit on both sides of the argument, but I am still inclined to think that there is enough evidence of geometric alingments to make this a highly worthwhile line of enquiry. Admittedly, the fact that three of my source materials for making this claim - Henry Lincoln, David Wood and Andrews & Schellburger - all come up with somewhat different alingments in the vicinity of RLC, is somewhat troubling, but I still remain convinced that this forms an important part of the mystery. We - or rather, you guys with the expertise - just haven't quite worked it out yet.

As for your point about establishing the veracity or otherwise of a Medieval "survey", I'm not entirely sure that there was one either. However, I think Roscoe's point about dolmens and menhirs being a feature of all of these "sacred" landscapes, is what is key here. Given that many religious buildings are built upon the sites of previous pagan structures, maybe there wasn't a medieval surveyor ar all. Perhaps the church architects and builders of the 12th and 13th centuries were merely unconsciously following a geometry set out by their ancient ancestors. Perhaps this helps to explain why the geometry is muddled in places. Just a random thought.

I read another interesting book on this a couple of years back, which will doubtless be something of a red rag to a bull as far as the sceptics are concerned (David - you might want to look away from your PC at this point), but indulge me for a couple more lines.

"The Atlantis Blueprint" by Rand Flem-Ath and Colin Wilson looks at sacred geometry all over the world, including at RLC. You can take or leave their thesis that this is evidence of an Atlantean civilisation. I'd be inclined to leave it (although it would help to explain an awful lot, come to think of it). However, what they have to say about this as a worldwide phenomenon, their notion of a global grid, was something I found very interesting, particularly when it comes to polar north being in a different position now to 10,000 years ago (they argue in was in Hudson's Bay in Canada back then) and how this impacts upon the alignment of various sacred places.

One final thing, and then I'll probably go back to just reading this thread, rather than attempting to participate in it, given my limited knowledge. It's quite ironic, really. Some years ago, I was getting really fed up with the whole RLC enigma, because everything seemed so contentious - and tenuous. It was all hearsay, and dodgy parchments, and questionable grave stone inscriptions, etc. To which, of course, one can now add tombs, mummified corpses, bottles and coins to the happy mix. But the more I read (and watched) about the sacred geometry, the more re-enthused I became. "Finally," I thought, "Something demonstrable and provable. Surely no one can deny the reality of this. It proves that there is a genuine mystery in and around Rennes-le-Chateau."

And then I bcame involved in this Forum, and it seems that even this is being taken away from me.

Before long, will there be anything left in this mystery that I can carry on clinging to?

Rhetorical question. Thanks for reading. Back to the experts.

" "

Insufferable bore.

If it was named after Rhedae then how do you account for Rennes in Brittany. Or even Rennes Island off Stavanger, Norway.

Try Sanskrit. Last year I attended a rather interesting Celtic festival in Co Kerry, Ireland. Not only does Co Kerry have the largest concentration of Menhirs, Dolmens and Stone circles in the world (unless you know different) they have something else which Rennes le Chateau alumni will recognise immediately. I'll tell you about it.



You obviously spent most of your time the bar when you were there then. Mind you there are a lot of Crosses (Calvaires) placed at strategic places. So many might think the church was trying to stamp something out but merely enhanced it.