Arcadia Discussion Zone

Fascinating new site: http://www.opoul.com

Is this really AD's Tomb 1?

Filip, can you comment on what appears to be a significant new development in the Perillos stroy?

Best regards,

Andrew

I think it's something that some people HOPE will be a new development, but not sure what is meant with the purpose of this site. And reading from the forum that is linked to the site, it seems, the public isn't quite sure what the purpose of this site is either.

This is, in short, a geological anomaly, near Opoul, and there are others elsewhere, including some near RLC/RLB... I believe one on Serbairou, or thereabouts?

Not having spoken to the people involved with the site recently - due to other commitments on my part - I think what has happened, is this... and it's speculation, as I don't know why Pascal did this site.

Approximately 2 years ago, we had to "get rid" of someone, who was constantly harassing us, asking this, asking that, etc. As murder is illegal, and he was unable to take hints, we had to park him somewhere, and the only method to park him, was with a lie. I feel that for someone who has consistently lied to you, "repaying the favour" with one lie, is ok - not?
So we showed him this photograph, said he could never tell anyone about it though. We never actually said it was Tomb One, but we kinda implied it, of course... In the end, it did the trick: he left us alone - 15 emails per day less!

I think that person has now realised we did indeed park him, and he may want to have some revenge, and is now trying to cause some mischief of his own, by turning the game back on us. As you will see, nowhere does that Opoul site claim it is the alleged tomb 1... but someone on the forum is rather DESPERATELY trying to claim it is indeed tomb 1, so that's why I think I'm right in my reasoning here... but who knows. It could indeed be but the beginning of a geological survey of the region... though they've definitely done a very thorough job if that's just what it is meant to be!

If it is a debunking exercise aimed towards www.perillos.com, I would like to pose these people one VERY simple question... a lithmus test.

So where is Tomb 2?
Can you show me the location of tomb 2?
And take photographs of that?

And before anyone claims there are no photographs of tomb 2, so this challenge is just the raving of a delusional mind, unwilling to accept he's been played: wrong. One photograph of the genuine tomb 2 was shown in Amsterdam in November 2003 (or 4) - Frontier Symposium -, and at a select few other events (I mention the Amsterdam one, as there is video of that event).
Indeed, for those who SERIOUSLY want to play with me... guys (and girls): you really need to be better. I ain't born last week. The only problem you will have is that I seldom like to play hardball

So, in short, my prediction is that this new site will not take up the challenge of "tomb 2", and it will be left with another series of innuendo, etc., no doubt claiming Andre is a liar, and that I am sadly taking in by him. It's like an old song that was first sung way back in 2000 or so by some poor deluded Americans.
Again, with Perillos, neither Andre or I are out to convince anyone... you either believe it, or you don't. We aint bothered (with respect to Little Britain).

On a more serious note, how many emails do I need to post on this forum to loose my status of Initiate???? It must be harder to advance on this forum than it is in the Priory of Sion - which no doubt is a good thing!!

Filip

Thanks Filip, and I am sorry that you are still an Initiate

Serioulsy, that is a very interesting reply...Cheers for that.

Maybe we will hear from the authors of the site in due course...

Andrew

Interesting stuff.

So.........is the picture cut and pasted by jb on his thread "Are Douzet's tombs real?" the picture that was released to this annoying individual? It appears as though that picture and the geological feature are the same thing, although it is difficult to say for certain. So, in that case the aforesaid "tomb picture" is nothing of the sort.....................it is a red herring and was known to be a geological anolomy,.....and further.............there is not a genuine picture of tomb 1 in ready circulation but there is one of Tomb 2 somewhere which was shown at a symposium?

Have I got this right????

PhC should rest assured that Forum rankings are based on quantity, not quality, otherwise I'd be sub-researcher, or something, and not my present, absurdly over-exalted status.

And it was a very interesting reply. My knowledge of Perillos is mostly based on what I have read, since my only visit to the site itself took place on what I am convinced was the mistiest day in recorded history, in wet cloud so thick that I could barely see beyond the bonnet of my car, so I've never even set eyes on the castle, for example.

Initial thoughts on the new website, though, are that the slope that has been photographed appears to be a long way from what I had understood to be the general area under investigation by AD and others, and that it does not look well concealed enough to qualify as a hidden tomb entrance.

Interesting geological phenomenon, though, presumably caused by some form of erosion. PhC's comment about other anomolies such as this in the wider region would be worthy of further investigation, because if such evidence could be published, it would stop this new development in its tracks, and stop us all going down yet another blind alley.

OK - replying to myself here!!

On closer inspection there are striking similarities between the new geological photo and the photo of the tomb entrance but there do appear to also be significant differences (not counting the colour in this assessment).

So is the position that the photo on jb's thread is "real" and that the geological photo is a good likeness, but in actual fact something completely different?

If so, this is a smear which shouldn't be too difficult to bury with some quite basic photographic analysis?

I would say this round thing looks very much like the one shown on the illegal copy of Tombeau du Christ, the documentary by Stefan Friedrich that was never released but put on Daily Motion by one of his employees for a couple of weeks. That's also where the screenshot is coming from. Only the coloring is different.

I always thought that was Tomb 1.

There you go... give it time, and you can provide your own answers

Yes, the older picture that got circulated and which was part of the documentary and this one, are of the same thing. I can add that this German documentary made two claims:
1. that this was Tomb 1.
2. it showed some footage claiming to be of Andre descending in tomb 2.

When we learned this was in the documentary, we were furious with the producers, as it was their attempt to sprite up their documentary with totally false allegations. We told them to remove it. They said they couldn't (claiming lack of funds to do so). We told them that at least, the phrasing of what was said HAD to be changed, and also that the documentary should say whether tomb 1 "could be" like the one on the photograph. That we couldn't let false statements like that be aired, or circulated, specifically of the seriousness of the claims made, purely done to sell videos...
In the end, our complaints to them was one of the contributing reasons why this documentary was never released.

Filip

This thing is well-known locally... As early as 2003 or so, someone locally pondered the notion whehter this was perhaps the tomb in question. At the time, the answer was no; it still isn't. The only difference between then and now, is that in 2003, it was aired off-line... this is online.

And I made adept status! Hurray!

Actually, I was going to come back to you on it, but in the time I've been away, the whole thing seems to have been cleared up!

What I was going to say is that I didn't think the two non-tombs (the one on the JB thread, and the new colour picture) were all that similar. The new colour one is round, with what looks like blue-flowered Rosemary growing beside it. The other one is more oval-shaped, and the flowers appear to be white-flowered Rosemary (Rosmarinus Officinalis "Albiflorus").

It also struck me that the round shape was set within the rocky escarpment, meaning that if it had to be rolled to one side, in order to gain access, then this could likely only be achieved from the inside.

So I guess we're just looking at interesting geology, then? If so, it begs the question, as others have alluded - what is the purpose of publishing this? Is there an ulterior motive, somewhere?

Filip, Richard - thank you, very concise.

My eye was originally drawn to the area of mineral deposit to the right of the circular rock which seemed to correspond well with the fuzzy picture of the tomb. However, as has been noted there are numerous obvious anomolies on closer inspection.

So, just some more mischief making in the wonderful world of Sauniere and friends.

It actually makes me see more clearly why many of the more genuine researchers in the field are very guarded about their discoveries and research. I used to put in down to paranoia.........but it turns out that there really are some nutters out there!

I'll tell you exactly what it is. It's the same stone shown in the deformed oval stone image.

In the image below, I simply took a screen shot of the Opoul image and squeezed it in using the raster deform function in paint Shop pro. I put the other image over it to show that they are identical.

I thought I got that oval image from Douzet's 17 Questions but looking at the article again I must have got it somewhere else. I guess that's not really supposed to be one of Douzet's tombs but if anyone has a source where Douzet claims it IS his tomb, then we know it's bogus. Oddly enough, on a Perillos web page we find this;

"Armed with the Courtade document and the model, Douzet found the two tombs indicated on the model. He visited the tomb, described as ‘Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea’ and found some coins, nails and cups inside. He found the ‘Tomb of Christ’ sealed shut with a round stone of 2 metres in diameter. Douzet claims he has not entered this tomb since it would require heavy equipment to open it and he would have to reveal its location in order to get the equipment there. Recently a photo of the tomb was leaked to YouTube as part of an illegal preview copy of a German documentary on the subject."

I had to use the Google cache of the web page because the original is no longer up. My question is why does the page state that the leaked image IS of the tomb when PhC is now stating here that it is not? We now know that the leaked image is of this same geological anomaly. Why, also, does it say on the page that the model doesn't match the actual place in Jerusalem depicted when, in fact, it does? It's a very good rendering of the Holy Sepulchre site, the skull shape of Golgotha clearly visible. I know there is no such landscape anywhere around Perillos because I checked that whole are in Google Earth. So why are they saying Jerusalem doesn't match when it does and that Perillos matches when it does not? Why the deliberate false statements?

Incidentally, as I surmised from the size of the flowers the round stone is only a couple feet across, as can be seen in the Opoul photo section where a man is standing by it pointing at it.

JB, I want you to apologise immediately for either being a moron, or a liar.
That quote you claim was removed from our website, was NEVER on our website. It IS, however, on Corjan's RLC site.

http://www.rlcresearch.com/2008/02/17/perillos/

So JB, apologise... The world can do without people like you who either are blind, or intentionally misrepresent things that are blatantly FALSE. Which one are you? I'm ok if you just admit you got it wrong, no doubt as a website address ending on perillos confused you? It can happen to the best, of course... A simple apology will be just fine.

Yeah, sure, I'll apologize for making a simple mistake in mixing up two rather similar websites if you'll apologize for being a rude bastard. Which is it, are you rude, a bastard, or both? You seem to be a little touchy about this whole Douzet tomb thing being shown to be a load of guff. What's that about, PhC? What's your stake in this? You know that model is of Jerusalem and not Perillos so why don't you admit it and apologize for misleading the public to the contrary?

Oh, I get it now. The whole existence of the Perillos website is based on this Douzet thing being real. Yeah, i can see why you'd be a little miffed when the truth came out.

Definitely agree with being rude in my reply, and I'll take the bastard, as long as you don't think I am a vicious bastard... just a rude one

Seriously, though, you may think it's a "simple mistake", but dozens of people will read it, and take it for gospel, and another myth is born, and people fall for it. It's such "simple mistakes" that have made the entire enigma riddled with innuendo and confusion. And one wonders why this enigma never advances! It's 99% due to that. Nothing else.

The best one is that now people wonder whether there even IS a crypt in RLC, which all stems from someone at some point making a simple mistake, by confusing that it was unknown what was IN the crypt, with that it was unknown whether there was a crypt.

JLChaumeil says that RLC is largely about people, not about a mystery, and I've often thought it's why JLC plays with Smith so much, as he knows that by doing it, the entire "santeboetiek" (that's a Dutch word, capturing the carnival best) - treadmill is probably closest English expression though - keeps going.

Ok, either you edited your entry, or I didn't see part of it the first time I looked at your reply.

As to the Jerusalem Model, I gave you a challenge on the other tread, and you didn't reply or respond to it, so... ball in your court.

And, yes, JB, I told you in the first posting that I was sensitive about this thing, for an obvious reason mentioned in my posting, which is that the people behind the scenes of this site are trying something on, out of spite and revenge... and so a lot of good energy is gonna be directed to them, to first of all put the situation right, and expose them... Energy which could be used for more constructive things. But so be it...

Yes I did do some editing of the post. I never saw your challenge about Jerusalem but if you'll be so kind as to repeat it now I'll be happy to comply. I have a little challenge for you too. Show me a place in Perillos that looks like a skull.

In regard to the Opoul website, I looked at it and found nothing vaguely related to defaming your website, or whatever it was you said they did. i also found nothing in the very short forum about claiming that the anomaly is tomb1. It looks to me like a simple website about a geological anomaly that the site creators found interesting. A person or two on the forum mentioned RLC but the site owners displayed little interest in the subject. Please post the actual quotes here which you were referring to.

Oh, I guess you mean this challenge;

"Well, if you can show me a landscape in Jerusalem that has a tomb of Joseph of Arimathea and another of the Tomb of Christ, not only I, but the entire world will be impressed."

Image below of the Holy Sepulchre site. Position 10 is the tomb of Joseph of Aramathea. Position 7 is the tomb of Christ. Douzet says that it is a mistake to show separate tombs for Jesus and Joseph but that is the actual case, they are separate tombs, as anyone can easily find by simply researching the Holy Sepulchre. The "cistern" is position 18, called "the crypt of the finding of the cross" on the web page I got the map from. This is the cistern where Helena found the True Cross and which later became her crypt. You can see where Golgotha is as it is clearly labeled, though spelled with an A instead of an O. Calvary is also in this complex, though not shown in this particular image. All those positions match the Sauniere model perfectly. I guess the whole world is impressed now.

The obvous question now is why was I able to identify the place that the model is based on and you weren't? The reason the actual ground in the area of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre may not match that shown on the model is because that whole area was flattened down when they built the church, for obvious reasons;

"The burial site

After Christ was taken down from the cross, Joseph of Arimathea buried him in a tomb that Joseph had donated. When the church was built on that spot 300 years later, the hill around the tomb was removed, so only a small structure remains, on a flat surface." http://www.trekker.co.il/english/church ... sepulchre/

Now, what does the label on the model say? The Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre, Original State. Now you know why you can't match the model to the modern landscape of the Holy Sepulchre/Calvary area. The landscape was purposely altered. Douzet says about this label in his book;

"The text can be interpreted on two levels; "original" also implies an alteration took place later on. On this level, the model represents the "true state" or "truth" of something, before it was changed later, the change making it no longer true or accurate."

How right you are, Andre, how right you are.

For my final words in this post I'll borrow a phrase from you, "Indeed, for those who SERIOUSLY want to play with me... guys (and girls): you really need to be better. I ain't born last week. "

Image from http://www.planetware.com/map/jerusalem ... olysep.htm

Now tell me again, will you PhC, why those two tombs Douzet claims to have found are presumed to be the ones shown on the model of the Holy Sepulchre. You'll have to excuse my ignorance but I'm a moron, remember?

Here's another image, from a book published in 1979, as shown in Douzet's own book. This book also has a model of the Holy Places just like Sauniere's, minus the labels. The author got the position of the Jesus tomb wrong, since it isn't actually labeled. He thought it was on the hill behind the actual tomb, which is correctly labeled on Sauniere's version. You can see that the indentation which is the real tomb location of the model corresponds to the center of the rotunda in the church. Any variations between this model and Sauniere's are extremely slight, as anyone can see for them self. Incidentally, I'm using the Google Books preview of the Douzet book for the things I mention as being from that book. It seems to be a well enough written book, just the subject matter is flawed. He suggests that an area around Perillos is a negative version of this model. I find it very difficult to believe that an actual area would be a perfect negative version of Holy Sepulchre site, much less that it is somewhere near RLC. For that to be the case, somebody would have had to use a bulldozer to alter the landscape because for that to happen naturally is just way beyond the realm of realistic probabilities. I certainly give Douzet credit for an interesting and original theory. I just don't personally believe it to be plausible from what I have seen so far.

You have to forgive me for replying late. I am in Paris for work so on PDA for a couple of days.

Let me explain:

Societe Perillos and RLC Research are not related or part of the same team. Philip, Andrew and I are good friends that work together on Radio Rennessence. Each of us, at the same time has his own research and website independently. I am a normal member of Societe Perillos to get a copy of their magazine.

Raven

I can't show you a place in Perillos that looks like a skull. Why? Should I "have" to be able to do this? I don't remember claiming something in Perillos ever looks like a skull - I assume from looking at it from above?



Read my original posting, and you'll see I totally agree with what you write here. JB, I apologise once again for being a rude bastard, but you are a master of inaccurate reading. I've explained the situation in my original posting, so go to it... You have to remember that I know the people involved, and on that photograph, and that I hence recognise certain "friends" who were "distanced" from the French SP and as friends because of certain things. The very fact the site exists, is evidence that they wanna play, and we'll let them play - and destroy them along the way.

Anyway, unless someone - and I don't mean you, but a Pascal Guillaume or others involved in that site - comes up with something else, I consider this strand to be closed... by which I mean my contribution to it; you can happily continue on your own...

Hear, hear. Virtually every active thread on this Forum has some kind of controversy attached to it, and we've become conditioned to seeing every new development in the mystery as another potential false trail. For non-experts like me, it makes the whole thing immensely confusing and frustrating. And if this wasn't bad enough, there are too many "players" in this affair, deliberately trying to muddy the waters. No wonder I feel like giving the whole thing up, at times.

Still, pleased to see that this one seems to have been put to bed. Not the AD tomb, after all, just a pleasant day out in the countryside, photographing some interesting rocks.

Richard, I could not agree more.......zzzzzzzzzzing happily in Oz.

THATS NOT TRUE PhC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know Stefan and Siggi Scherf personally, AND I have seen this Video from the so called Tomb and the sarcophag with the carvings and the stone sword on it!
This video was exactly talking about the subject that THIS circle is the ENTRANCE TO THE TOMB of JESUS. then they are comparing this entrance with the one described in the Bible!
Siggi AND Stefan refered to that so calle Tomb and told me AD wanted the red colour out of the circle because otherwise it´s easy to find. Finally A D forced them to cut the scenes because A D wanted to make his own documentary. The video out of the tomb is looking to me like the citern in Limoux Ndd Marceille. Can someone check this please?

YOU GET CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN!!!!!!!!!!

Well, well. First PhC completely ignores the fact that I showed exactly what the Sauniere model depicts, the real Holy Sepulchre site in Jerusalem, and then Pat confirms that Douzet WAS claiming that the round geological anomaly is the tomb of Jesus. Now we know why the image makes the stone look yellow, because Douzet didn't want it identifiable. Now why would Douzet not want a simple geological anomaly identifiable? PhC also indicated in his last post that he was running away from this thread. A rather odd thing to do after all the huffing he did. Why has he suddenly decided that he can no longer defend his position and has to run away?

In conclusion, this thread alone has made me believe more than ever that the Douzet tombs are a hoax. As the black and white image showed, these models were not uncommon and they come in two versions, the "original state" version, as shown by Sauniere's model, and the modern (or at least later) state version showing how the topography was altered and the church built on the site. Really no big mystery to it at all. The only thing to connect the model to Perillos is the claims by Douzet that Sauniere specified actual locations in Perillos in his letters to the model maker. All we have is his word on that and why would Sauniere want the model maker to know the location anyway? Doubtful he needed to use a topography map to make the model when other models already existed showing the real topography perfectly.