Arcadia Discussion Zone

Pat, I don't know who you are - well, I assume Pat - but beyond that. Again, this is sloppy reading of my post on your part. I TOLD you that the DVD states this is Tomb 1. But I also told you that it is not Andre, but the PRODUCERS who made this claim.
Your final claims about Siggi and Stefan and what Andre wanted, etc., are partly correct, partly incorrect, but, AGAIN, I've ALREADY commented on that, in this thread on this very site. Doesn't ANYONE read anything correctly here?

The video of the tomb is not NDdM. I'll add something here: that video of the descent was filmed more than 15 years ago, had nothing to do with RLC or Perillos. Andre showed it to Stefan, and they wanted a copy. They signed a statement - which I have - that this was purely for personal use and definitely not to be used for this documentary. Indeed, Andre at some point wanted to use this for a documentary of his own, but this was a documentary NOTHING to do with RLC or Perillos, and hence nothing with what Stefan et al. were doing.
Six months later, what do we find? They've not only USED the footage, but then claim it is a descent into the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea! Can you imagine how Andre - and I - felt when we saw what they had done? That wasn't too bad, yet... what happened next, you can find out in the 2nd posting (or so) I did in this thread. And what happens next? The footage turns up on DailyMotion, and we ask who put it there. They never told us, but it can only have been three of four people, and two of those are part of the German production team. Since us repeatedly asking to identify who posted it, we've heard nothing from this group of producers...

I'll stop here, though there is more dirt here to be dished out, if required.

In short, you have added nothing to this debate; I merely wanted to comment here, as you seem to be potentially personally involved, and I said that I would comment if people that are personally involved had anything to add.

Again, complete ignoring of the points I raised which show that the model is of the Holy Sepulchre and not Perillos. Why the ducking of the real issues, PhC?

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?

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)

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.

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?

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.

You're a real piece of work, aren't you PhC? No my posts are not particularly long. I'm actually one of the most concise people on this forum. Anyway, you're right about this not being the proper thread for this discussion so I'll make a new one entitled Douzet Model Theory Demolished. You can either reply to my posts there or let them go unchallenged. Makes little difference to the fact that the Douzet theory will have been demolished by the facts I post, most of which I've already mentioned in various other posts but I'll collect them all together in one spot for maximum demolition effect. There really won't be much you will be able to say to counter my posts anyway, so take your time.

NOOOOO! This cant be true, because in the so called Tomb of J from Arimathee the video is showing at first the Citern from Limoux and then the cam is turning to the sarcophag-THIS VIDEO STUFF was given Stefan and Siggi from A D! Long time ago I had some email contact with Stefan Friedrich-At first he was so happy to do this production, but then he finally changed his mind! He said to me he can´t belive the whole story anymore. He has evidences that the story is not true and he doesn´t want to do anything more about RLC!
Is there someone out there who can get this video, so you all can see that all I say is the truth! I have to admit that I was completely fascinated by this Videotape, so I´m a little bit sad that all this stuff is another fake!!!!
And sorry to say that-PhC-you are telling lies!!!! If there is a TOMB in Perillos give the exact GPS dates to the DRAC that they can excavate it, show us pics from inside (maybe like Ben Hammott did). Whats the problem in showing the tomb from inside????? If you are so close to AD you probably know more about the location of the Tomb, don´t you?

The information to get the video Tomb of Christ is here http://www.german-cinema.de/app/nextgen ... lm_id=1519
and you can see the round anomaly at the lower left of the image at the top of the page. A film of the inside of the tomb would do no good, Pat, because we all know how easy it is to fake them. He could take any cave and put stuff in it himself.

It cannot be true? Pat, you were not directly involved, so you just go on the story you were told. But as you seem to have direct and excellent connections with Stefan, ask him whether the Joseph of A footage was taken inside NDdM or not. I am looking forward to your - but of course especially HIS - reply.

Remember, there were several people present during the filming of these things, so bring me one person who says he was present during this descent.
Either way, where this footage was shot, has nothing to do with the central issue of the debate here.

Of course it has! A D wanted to sell us this round shaped rock formation as the ENTRANCE TO THE TOMB OF JESUS!
What about my questions above???

What the heck is NDdM? And why would you have to descend into a tomb as shown on the model when those are walk-in tombs? Anyone can plainly see that the tombs have an entrance going into the side of a hill, not down into anything. This whole Douzet tomb thing is a bigger mess than Hammott's tomb thing. Aren't there any honest people associated with REAL discoveries in southern France? All we ever get from either the Hammott group or the Douzet group are no answers or ridiculously inadequate answers. We get little bits of stuff here and there, like photos or articles, but they all turn out to be highly questionable and later on somebody like me shows how they cannot possibly be true. You're all giving RLC an even worse name than it had before.

Oh, I see, two different subjects. Did you know that beneath Paris is a huge complex of tunnels? I saw it on a documentary. It's all limestone under there and as they quarried it out they left a bunch of tunnels. They use them as catacombs for bones. They have big piles of bones down there. Quite a sight to see. Looks like something from Cambodia killing fields or something. I'm sure a lot of those tunnels must run beneath various Paris cathedrals. The secret hiding potential is endless, almost literally.

These tunnels are actually accessible from various locations in Paris, might need a little digging. Wouldn't be hard to get in there somewhere close to a major cathedral and find your way under it. You'd have to take a long string with you, though, and a GPS, or you'd never get out again.

I know this is not actually on the topic of this thread, but in further to my last post, considering that the bedrock beneath Paris is all easily tunnelable limestone, what do you suppose the odds are that some work was done under St. Sulpice? It has been referred to as "the new Solomon's Temple" and yet it seems to be a fairly normal church. However, for all we know there could be a huge complex carved out in the limestone bedrock below. Likewise with such places as Chartres. Do you really think that such splendid digging conditions would not have been taken advantage of? In fact, where do you think the stone came from to build such cathedrals? That's why those tunnels exist, because the stone was quarried to build the cathedrals and other structures.

There is also the possibility of being able to access the quarried tunnels and get close to St. Sulpice and then do your own digging to get the rest of the way under the church. If you bought a property in the area and dug down through the basement you would almost certainly hit a tunnel somewhere nearby which would get you close to the church, using GPS, if it would work underground. If not, I guess you'd have to calculate the position. It would be like a modern version of what the Templars did in Jerusalem. What would you do with the stone chips? Spread them around in the old tunnels.

"In total, there are nearly 300 kilometers of tunnels - that's twice as long as all the tunnels of the Paris subway system" http://www.adeleblancsec.org/catacombs.html

HEEEEELLLLLLOOOO! PhC! Please answer the Questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That took them 9 years, did it?

Since PhC won't reply on my other thread about Douzet theory demolished, I'll post something here instead, using quotes from his post.



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?



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.



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.



I think i just did.



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.

JB, I HAVE A LIFE... I CAN'T SPEND IT HERE ON A FORUM... and even if I could, I wouldn't!



So we're a Sibyll now, hey?



I know, but at least I've written some, and they were even published



Sorry, but Google isn't a website... It's a SEARCH ENGINE. Could you give me a real website address?

JB, get a life mate... clean up your act. Make it civil and let go off the agro and hyperbole and self-aggrandisement. And you will have to wait several months to get a reply if you don't. I don't have time for this... more specifically, and to be VERY precise: I don't have time for YOU. And I sincerely hope you wouldn't have time for me too!

Hi PhC.

Didn't think the fact that I just proved the whole Douzet model theory bogus worthy of comment, huh PhC? Here, I'll do the hard part of using Google for you. See if you can click on this link, or is that too complicated for you too? http://www.planetware.com/map/jerusalem ... olysep.htm

Sorry, but what is this map supposed to prove? Or do you think it proves that Joseph of Arimathea was buried in the location that on the map is referred to as "Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea" (Abyssinian) ?

JB, This is the end of the conversation I have with you! It is UNKNOWN where Joseph is buried - which you should know as about half of the Glastonbury mythology is built around it!

To highlight how wrong you are:

http://www.bibleplaces.com/holysepulcher.htm



I guess in some twisted logic, you could argue that Sauniere out of ALL the features there, he would forget the most important, but nevertheless incorporate a tomb which is known NOT to have been that of Joseph, yet label it as such... and which no-one has deemed to be of any importance. But that's so twisted that only your mind could come up with that! Those tombs have nothing to do with the story of the bible, to begin with, so why they should be included in the story of the Calvary is beyond me. But obviously you will have insights... of course.

Anyway, that's the end of this conversation. With your usual namecalling, you don't deserve even these five minutes of my time.

You can claim I ran away with my tail between my legs, in truth, you just call people names, so they come back and give you some attention. I looked at some of the other entries you've done over the past few days and how people react, and there seems to be a common denominator: you've lost the plot mate...

I don't recall saying it WAS the actual tomb of JoA. That's what it's called in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the model is of the Holy Sepulchre. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was in existence long before Sauniere was born and the model made. You're right about our conversation being over, though, because you're a REAL slow learner and I don't have the patience for that. Go help Douzet make up another 3rd rate hoax, only this time don't base it on something so ridiculously easy to disprove as the suggestion that there are not a tomb of JoA and tomb of Jesus in the Holy Sepulchre site and that they are not in the exact same positions as shown on Sauniere's model. Your credibility here after this little episode is zero.

Incidentally, I prefer this quote from the page PhC linked;

"The best piece of evidence that the tomb of Jesus was in this area is the fact that other first-century tombs are still preserved inside the church. Called the "Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea," these burial shafts (kokhim) are clearly from the time of Christ's death and thus attest to some kind of burial ground in the area. "

This image should clarify the situation once and for all. Sauniere's actual model superimposed over the Holy Sepulchre diagram. Both labeled tombs corresponding exactly to the same two tombs in the church and the cistern corresponding to the crypt of Helena, which was orignally a cistern in which she found the three crosses of Calvary.



See those two little rectangular spaces on the diagram visible right under the "Tomb of Joseph of Aramathea" on Sauniere's model? Well, here's an image of what they depict, two tombs called the "Tomb of Joseph of Aramathea" in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Whether or not they were really Joseph's tomb, that's what they are called in the church. If you were making a model of that site, why would you call them something else?




And, again, this image from a book published in 1979 showing another model just like Sauniere's (left) compared to a model of the later time when the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built on the site. Gee, how do you suppose that other model maker happened to make HIS model depict the Perillos landscape, as Douzet claims the Sauniere model does? Rather more likely that Sauniere had HIS model depict the same Holy Sepulchre site as this model does. Now unless by some incredible miracle of nature, a place in Perillos exactly matches the landscape of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, I would say that it is case closed on the Douzet Sauniere model/Perillos hoax.



Where did he get those artifacts he says came from the tomb of JoA? Probably from various places he metal detected in. That's really what they look like to me, a bunch of different things you would be expected to find with a detector in an area like southern France which was formerly Roman. Compare Douzet's nails to this one, which is an actual crucifixion nail from about 7 AD from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ixion.html
Granted they may be Roman nails, but they look in better condition than the one from 7 AD and seem to have thinner edges on the heads.



Douzet artifacts as shown in his 17 Questions. I don't see anything here that you could unambiguously connect to Jesus or Joseph or that would be likely to be found in a tomb;

I got an email from the former prodocer of "Tombeau du Christ" He told me that they know this stone story since 1 year. Everything was faked! The sarcophag you can see on the film was filmed somewhre else in France and shows a probably a te,mplar burial place (seen by the sword on its top)
A D got his story once from a man living in Opoul. He told him about 2 tombs, the one from a Joseph and from a so called Ramon! When A D got the marquette he made this Jesus story!

So are there really two tombs in the Perillos area, just not Jesus but Ramon and not Joseph of Aramathea but another person named Joseph? Also, why do you suppose Bill didn't show you the actual tomb site? You seem like an honest person so if you go see it and tell me it's real I would tend to believe you. It seems very odd to me that he didn't ever take you to the tomb so you would know for sure he is telling the truth. Why would he not do that? The only other two people who claim to have seen the tomb are very unreliable in my opinion.

In regard to Douzet's model/Perillos hoax, I guess we know who to go to if we want someone to easily convince of a hoax and help us promote it, PhC, who I assume is one Philip Coppens, since Andrew called him Filip, which is the proper spelling of his name. He sure didn't do much research on the Holy Sepulchre before he swallowed Douzet's story hook, line and sinker. Or did he know all along that it was a hoax and just went along with it to get a piece of the publicity? Neither version makes him look very good. The whole thing will shortly turn into a major fiasco for Douzet and Coppens, after the indisputable evidence I just showed, and the information you have provided. Maybe this will serve as a deterrent to others who have an idea to make an RLC related hoax. It's not safe with me around because it's just a matter of time before I expose them. Now when is Raven going to do a piece on the Douzet hoax on RLCresearch like he did with Boodline? Corjan doesn't play favorites, does he? I guess we'll have to see. After the way Coppens made arrogant posts here and was quite offensive to me, it is a pleasure exposing him for what he really is, either a hoaxer or the naive pawn of a hoaxer, and it's hard to believe anyone could really be THAT naive.

JB: I already gave the answer above!
Ben is not a hoaxer! At first I thought like you he is a hoaxer, finally I met him in France and he has shown many things to me that I can´t do anything but belive his finds! It´s real! Soon you will see!
BTW: Who the f... is Ramon? Never heared about him!?!?!

You tell ME who Ramon is. You're the one who mentioned him. Is this, or this this not, you stating that an old man told Douzet about two tombs, one of a Joseph and one of a "Ramon"? I'm a little curious myself about who Ramon is.



Now why are you so sure about Bill's tomb story being true? What could he possibly have shown you, without showing you the tomb itself, that could possibly prove the tomb exists? There IS nothing other than you looking in that hole and seeing the tomb that could conclusively prove it actually exists. The obvious question is why won't he show you the tomb while he is willing, according to them, to show it to Sandy and Kersey? Does he not trust you not to try to break into the tomb or tell others where it is, and why then does he NOT trust you?

Look, here's what you do to find out if the tomb exists. You get Wilkinson to meet you at RLC and then you put a blindfold over your eyes and he drives around a little to disorient you and then takes you to the tomb, just like when Batman wants to take someone to the Bat Cave but doesn't want them to know where it is. There's no way you will know where he has taken you. Once you're inside the cavern you take off the blindfold and look in the hole. He obviously has reason not to trust you but there is no logical reason for him not to take you there blindfolded. If he refuses to go along with this idea, you know you've been a sucker all this time, simple as that. Sure, it will be a shock to you to find out the truth about Bill lying all this time, but at least you'll finally know the truth. Until then, you will never be able to be 100% sure the tomb exists and you really shouldn't be on a forum like this vouching for him and saying as if it is an established fact that he is not a hoaxer until you've done that because later when the tomb is proved to be fake you will look like a fool, assuming for the sake of argument that the whole thing really is a hoax, which I am 99% sure it is based on everything I've seen so far.

Now, since Bill Wilkinson doesn't trust you enough to see the tomb, nobody on this forum has any reason to trust anything you say, especially when you tell a story about a Ramon and then later ask who Ramon is like you've never heard the name before.

OK! I got the Name Ramon from someone, like I did explain above! He TOLD me that the old men in Perillos were talking about two tombs in this area-the 1st one was said that it belongs to a JOSEPH and the 2nd one to a RAMON! As this is a forum of "so called experts" I just wanted to know who this Ramon bloke is-thats all!
Ben doesn´t have to bring me to the site-I know the location!!!!!!!
It´s not far from... Sorry I´m a programmed Cylon-I can´t say it