Arcadia Discussion Zone

Go look in the hole and tell me if there's a tomb in there, will ya? It never occurred to you to do that yet, huh? Now here's who Ramon is, at least one of these five, I don't know who Joseph is;

" Perillos enters the annals of written history in the 12th century: in 1114, a Raymond de Perillos is present at the dedication of the church of Salses, to the south-east of Perillos. At least five lords of Perillos were given the name “Ramon”, Raymond (meaning “worthy protector”), the Christian name the family seem to have cherished most. The castle was and never would be a large fortress, but rather an advance station to avoid the danger that the Roussillon was taken – on observation post. " http://perillos.com/concise_history.html

I found an interesting conversation by Timothy Carmaine mentioning Ramon and Coppens.

In regard to Ramon's tomb, unfortunately there ARE no images on the Net of that tomb, which is probably why Carmaine didn't include a link. Incidentally, I'm well aware that Carmaine is less than mentally stable, but his comments about Coppens and Douzet look verifiable to me.

..

..

Coppens and Douzet are welcome to disprove Carmain's statements. Coppens seems to have taken a powder.

Doubtful he was really looking for Ramon Perellos Rocafull or the beast, but Jesus and Joseph sounds about right.

At least I don't write gibberish posts like you, Roger. My posts are generally somewhere close to comprehensible. Maybe you should wear a garlic necklace around your neck, to keep those demons out of your head. I think they're playing hacky-sack with your brain.

I admit that it's impossible to tell, in that blog page I linked and quoted, who is making the more bizarre allegations, Carmain or Coppens, but at least some of that crud being tossed back and forth is bound to stick on Coppens as much as Carmain. One thing's for sure. That model isn't about Perillos, it's about Jerusalem, and it's not even slightly ambiguous. At this point, unless Douzet rolls that stone away and pulls out Jesus' carcass, there isn't much chance of anyone believing his claims.

Well, after an introduction like that, I say it's high time we got to the bottom of it, wouldn't you agree? I think I have a few minutes to spare between blood sacrifices and my next Black Mass (do all of you people do your "fact-checking" on Paul Smith's site? That explains a LOT).

You're correct, the maquette isn't about Perillos, or Sauniere for that matter. It's about the late Biblical archaeologist and rector of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, Monsignor Enrico Galbiati. This maquette, along with its companion piece ("before" and "after") were photographed for Galbiati's book "The Gospel of Jesus", published in 1979; the originals are in the Museum of the Franciscan Fathers in Jerusalem, and have been since 1904.

I'd be truly amazed if there is anyone here who knows how Galbiati connected to Cherisey - which is the only reason Douzet thought he could weave a story around this copy of the Pères Franciscains model.

TCP

And yet you quote verbatim such a scurrilous allegation. And then you wonder why PhC isn't minded to respond. If you think the comments are "verifiable", then verify them. Otherwise it's just mud slinging.

Seriously, JB, much as I enjoy the daily burlesque of your adversarial approach to public discussion, there are times when it can become quite wearing. This would be one of those times.

With the greatest respect, and with the best will in the world, I would recommend that you visit the Societe Perillos website, and just read all the material on the model, the tombs and related matters. It's all very comprehensively set out. You don't have to agree with it; just read it; and then you'll be in a better position to comment. At the present time even I - probably the least informed person on this Forum - can tell that you are barking up several wrong trees.

I was also going to suggest that you take out an SP subscription. That way, you'd get four PDF newsletters a year - making you even better informed - and the opportunity to make a modest financial contribution to SP's on-going researches. However, it is a "society", so you may have some fences to build first.

I hope you'll take all that in the good natured way in which it is intended, as I do enjoy engaging with you - like on Le Casteillas and the Boudet family tomb in RLB, to quote two recent examples. There's just too much anger round here. It's a real downer at times.

How am I "self absorbed", Roger? When do I post about myself? You just don't like the fact that I actually accomplish things like proving Hammott and Douzet/Coppens to be hoaxers while all you do is write posts to offend people with no other purpose. Now why don't you hash out with TCP whether or not his allegations about Coppens are true, he's right here. That way, you can stop writing to me, because I'm not interested in hearing any more of your insults. And why don't you start speaking English, like civilized humans, instead of the uncivilized French, who still poop in open holes in the ground instead of toilets.

Sorry, TCP, for the "less than mentally stable" comment, but I have seen quite a few things about you thinking you are some sort of nobility or something. Please clarify your statements about Coppens for the viewers of this thread.

In regard to what you said about the models, the strange thing is that Douzet and Coppens were well aware of the other models, which they actually included in the Douzet book, and yet they STILL had the gall to say that Sauniere's one depicts Perillos even though it is clearly the exact same depiction.

I've been called much worse things than being a nobleman. I'll let my memberships in certain nobiliary corporations requiring genealogical proofs determine whether or not I'm insane, or a two-bit conman.

You would have to ask Coppens or Douzet whose corpse they intended to uncover when they took Simon Cox and a film crew down to Perillos. They had claimed at various times to be looking for the Holy Family, Ramon de Perellos Rocafull, and a monster. The comment posted above quotes Coppens saying that I did indeed complain to local authorities. He certainly didn't hear about it from me, ergo how might he have known of the complaint if not from the authorities who received it?

As to their "gall", in my estimation this is standard operating procedure for Coppens and Douzet. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, ergo better for them to incorporate it with their own unique take on what it represents. Credible? Or stretching the limits of credibility to the breaking point?

TCP

http://www.stjohnscocathedral.org/theknites.html

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/malta1.htm


Google, or black magick?

TCP

Hi TCP.

Just as a point of clarification, I did show Simon Cox and Mark Foster around RLC, and they did film various bits for their Duat DVD - take for instance the Jean-Luc Interview. But I can say with 100% certainty that Simon Cox has not been to Perillos, either with me or Filip.

On the day that I went there with Mark, Simon stayed back at the flat. Reference my blog 'The Road to Perillos' - that's where I document that Mark came along but not Simon.

http://www.andrewgough.co.uk/roadtoperillos.html

Mark and I did in fact film Perillos, but it was never used. And Andre and Filip were not there. In fact, regretfully, I have not been to Perillos with either.

Cheers!

Andrew

Thank you for clarifying, Andrew. I'd heard only that Simon was headed that way to do some filming, I wasn't aware of who came along and who did the actual camera work. I'd assumed Filip and Andre would be on hand for direction, but if that's not the case, then thanks again for clearing that up.

TCP

Cheers. No problem; )

And you are...?

Thanks awfully for the travel tip, but I've been to France twice. Any other expired bytes culled from Paul Smith's website you'd like to lob at me? Let's get them all out of the way.

Thank you very much, TCP. The Ramon tomb wasn't actually shown, just something on part of it, but the first page you linked had something far more important, the sarcophagus of Grand Master L'Eveque de la Cassiere. See if you can detect any similarity between these two images. The mystery of the Shugborough Hall Shepherd's Monument tomb has just been solved. It doesn't match either of the tombs in the two Shepherds of Arcadia paintings, now we know why. But now a new question arises. Why was this man's tomb depicted in the monument, along with the Shepherds of Arcadia?

[quote="jb1717]Thank you very much, TCP. The Ramon tomb wasn't actually shown, just something on part of it, but the first page you linked had something far more important, the sarcophagus of Grand Master L'Eveque de la Cassiere. See if you can detect any similarity between these two images. The mystery of the Shugborough Hall Shepherd's Monument tomb has just been solved. It doesn't match either of the tombs in the two Shepherds of Arcadia paintings, now we know why. But now a new question arises. Why was this man's tomb depicted in the monument, along with the Shepherds of Arcadia?[/quote]

Ah, now I understand more clearly. You were looking for a photo of the sarcophagus itself and not just photographic evidence of the tomb of Perellos Rocafull in Valletta. I don't know of one available on-line, but I do have a close friend who lives in Valletta and I can ask him to photograph it.

The style of Cassiere's sarcophagus is, I believe, fairly standard for the period, is it not? Aside from obvious differences like being indoors rather than outdoors like the Shugborough relief depicts, the decoration around the base seems to be slightly different.

TCP

Maybe, but that's the only one I've seen like that and it certainly looks like a prime candidate for the one depicted in the monument. If you find any others that match, please show me. Sure, it doesn't have the two lions under it, but those are merely supports. It's shown outdoors because that's where the paintings are set. You couldn't very well show the Shepherds of Arcadia in a church, being pagan.

I can think of some similar ones - the Habsburg tombs in the Kapuzinergruft in Vienna and the Bourbon crypt at Kostanjevica come to mind:

http://www.kaisergruft.at/kaisergruft/gruft1.htm

http://www.samostan-kostanjevica.si/en-bourboni.htm

Also the Hohenzollern crypt:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hohenzollern_Crypt

If I think of more, I'll send more links.

TCP

I didn't see any matching tombs on any of those links. The Church of Kostanjevica had a checkered floor in the Bourbon crypt like the RLC church though, even with the same black partial tile borders. There is also a crucifix on the monument positioned at the center of the end of the crypt, as in "by this sign conquer". Maybe it's a clue to a similar crypt under the RLC church containing nobles.

Hello everyone,

I've read all the threads here about the opening of my new website and i feel a little uncomfortable about all this subject. So, i would like to clarify myself some little things :

The title of this thread is wrong (at least ambiguous) :
"New website claims to have found Tomb 1, incl Pics and Video"
I have never claim that we have found Tomb 1, and i 've never made a link or any innuendo or allusion to it. Opoul.com is just showing a geological feature near Opoul.

I agree with the fact that it could give a "déjà-vu" feeling to some people, but it is not my fault if this natural feature was used to support some theories.

I have never seen this German Documentary some are talking about, but now, i would love to watch it ! (thanks by advance if someone could provide me a copy).

I'm surprised to read PhC's feelings above.
It is not in my habits to be influenced by anyone to get my own opinions. It is difficult to manipulate me because i'm very curious and when i need to dig, i take the good tools. When i saw this feature, in real, my first reflex was not to run to the Vatican but to find relatives specialized in geological features. Fortunaly i have a friend who is in Geophysical researches.

I will not talk about all of these speculations inside my website because the first purpose of its existence was to talk about the village of Opoul which is the host of my experiment called Chronodrome. The second purpose is educational. I want to offer to people the best tools to be able to understand what each of us can see or encounter in this area. This geological feature is weird enough to fall easily in speculations and loss of time. I wished to start with the village by itself but the discovery of this stone and the oportunity to have friends in Geological fields who helped me to study it, changed my mind. I want this new website to be "neutral" in opinons and i agree that with this first "document" the task seems to be difficult.

Finaly, i hope that this first geologic lesson will help everyone to understand the importance to verify everything by himself and to use the appropriate competences to assess something which need expertise.

Pascal Guillaumes

Thank you Pascal. And sorry, you are right. I did unintentionally misrepresent the intent of the web site by superimposing my own impressions of what you were portraying. Sorry about that.

All the best,

Andrew

Pascal,

As we have discussed these things in private, I feel I should come out of my self-imposed silence, and underline that when I wrote "people behind the scenes of this website", I by default cannot mean you, as you are clearly identified, and did not mean you.
I am specifically referring to an individual that appears on the video images, and you and I know who we are talking about. Seeing that individual, whose sexual obsessions - or rather, fantasy and indulgences - have greatly damaged the internal rest of the Societe Perillos, while at the same time receiving private emails from that person that GREATLY angered me, I indeed lost my more usual cool. As with Andy in the Bloodline saga, when you see so-called friends all of a sudden from a different perspective, you feel a sense of personal betrayal, which doesn't so much as cloud judgment, but makes you add vinegar, salt and pepper not to your fries, but instead to your keyboard My vitriol was not with you, but with that individual...
And now I will go quiet again...

Filip,

How can you even dare to use this kind of sentence about this old person ? I don't know how "sexual obsessions" is used in english but in french you couldn't use it in this case. So, i hope that misunderstood is due to my lack of english.

Anyway, be sure that this person in the movie and the pictures didn't influence me to make my website. I say again that i don't need to be influenced by anybody to get my own opinions.

I'm not aware of your private email with him and i wonder how he could alone damage the rest of the SP. What power does have this shy person to "damage" the trust given to SP ? I think the only reason of SP's problem is the way this stone was used to support theories.

I don't agree with your behavior in this affair specially when you aim to 1 person the guilt. If you are really looking for the true you should accept that serious mistakes were made about the showing of this stone in many occasions.

Pascal