Since PhC won't reply on my other thread about Douzet theory demolished, I'll post something here instead, using quotes from his post.
Sorry JB, but I'm still trying to get my head around what you are trying to say. I didn't read ANYWHERE in your mail I had to answer within 30 seconds of you posting something. But as there is apparently a rush, you'll have to indulge me on this one, and you may have to repeat things, as I can't understand you very long postings properly in 15 seconds flat.
1. In Jerusalem, there is but one tomb, right: that of Joseph and Jesus are identical. So already, can I ask which one of the two on the model corresponds with the "real landscape of Jerusalem", and which not. I apologise if this answer is in your long mails. Also, what does the other location represent then in Jerusalem?
In Jerusalem there is but 1 tomb WRONG! There are two tombs just as shown in the model. Since you went to the trouble of making a whole website about Perillos, why did you not bother to open the Google web page and enter the words "Holy Sepulchre" into the search box, being that this is what the label on the model says it depicts? Had you done that, you would have quickly learned that there is a tomb of Joseph of Aramathea and a tomb of Jesus there. Whether or not the Bible says that there were two tombs, there are at the actual Holy Sepulchre site. Kind of negligent in the research department, aren't you PhC?
2. I assume both of these things then represent small hills in Jerusalem, for on the normal model, that is what they are. (normal = not the inverse)
Yes, at least in the "original state" of the Holy Sepulchre site. Both tombs are now inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre so I doubt they are in hills, more likely flattened down former hills.
3. I thought it was the case that no-one knows HOW the landscape of Jerusalem looked like in 1 AD, largely because things have been consistently rebuilt, etc., and it's all speculation. I've got this from archaeologists in Jerusalem, but they might be totally mistaken, or might use that argument merely to speculate as much as they want. I'd like to hear your opinion on this, but really, it's not as important as 1 or 2.
True, they don't KNOW the exact original landscape, but they have obviously made a good ascertainment of what it would have looked like, based on what is still left unaltered and Biblical descriptions. I say "obviously' because several examples of these models exist and they all show that same landscape.
Please address questions 1 & 2, though I do think we're talking here on the wrong thread, as I believe another one was opened for this purpose?
I think i just did.
If there are specific things you want me to address, fine, but you need to be specific. I just don't have the time - or frankly, the interest - to reply to each thing you or anyone thinks about Perillos. I mean, someone might come tomorrow with a claim that the 3 pears on the blazon of Perillos are 58 degrees apart, not 60... and whether the 58 is a reference to the fact this number is apparently used by the Priory, dixit TempRev. Etc. I'm not a commentator, who is paid to comment on everything that appears on Perillos, and I believe I still have free will and liberty to comment on what I want to comment on, and what I think is just rubbish.
Finally, sometimes comments like yours, on how the landscape does correspond to Jerusalem, we just decide to treat as an article for the site, which means you might get an answer in 5-8 months. I know that's long, but if you want to pay me wages so I can provide answers full-time, I will be more than happy. Seeing you ain't paying my bills, you come lower down my list of priorities.
I'll be interested to see the "article" on the Perillos site, though we both know it won't appear in 5-8 months or even 5-8 decades. Frankly, when the Douzet model claims have been so easily and thoroughly disproved, I would think you might bump up the priority just a tad. Now the world will see that you knew all about the major factual errors from this day forward and failed to revise your website to reflect that new knowledge, commonly referred to as "willful ignoring of the facts". When you know full well that you have published something which is not only untrue but could easily have been found out by you to be untrue by simply consulting readily available references on the subject, it then becomes deceit rather than ignorance. Therefore, from this day forth, you will be guilty of deceit and everyone who reads this forum will know it. Are you comfortable with that, PhC? By the way, is this post too long for you? I guess your eyes get tired after more than 4 paragraphs, huh? Stay away from books, PhC. You'll REALLY get a headache from them.