Arcadia Discussion Zone

Douzet model theory; Sauniere had a model produced which does not correspond to an actual site in Jerusalem but, instead, a site in the Opoul Perillos region.

"Facts" cited to support this theory;

1) No such landscape exists in Jerusalem
2) There are not two separate tombs in the Holy Sepulchre site, one called the tomb of Joseph of Aramathea and another called the tomb of Jesus/Christ and therefore that Sauniere had a model made which goes against his very religion.
3) That Sauniere specified actual places in the Perillos region in letters to the model maker
4) That a landscape exists in the Perillos region which matches the inverse of the model

Demolition 1) Well, as the label on the model says, the area depicted is the Holy Sepulchre in its original state, ie: how it looked at the time of the crucifixion. Since that area was purposely modified to accommodate the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, it is not at all surprising that the topography does not match the "original state" model. Shown below is an image depicting two models, one identical to Sauniere's aside from the lack of labels and a second depicting the same site after modified for the church. This image was published in 1979, 16 years prior to Douzet's acquisition of Sauniere's model. I can supply the name of the book but since it is specified in Douzet's own book about the model I'll simply use his book as the reference, which you can find the image and book details in yourself at the Google Books website. Quite obviously, such a landscape DOES exist in Jerusalem, though in a modified state as compared to the Sauniere original state model. Obviously, the original topography depiction must be based on what remains today and descriptions from the Bible. In other words, an educated reconstruction based on available facts. Sadly, no time machines, so there may be some variations with the actual appearance in the time of Jesus.



Demolition 2) Yes there are two separate tombs, one called the tomb of Joseph of Aramathea and the other called the tomb of Jesus. It really doesn't require much explanation. Anyone can easily research the Holy Sepulchre and find diagrams showing the locations of both, exactly as depicted on Sauniere's model. I'll make it even easier for you. Here's a web page with a diagram and the tombs clearly marked; http://www.planetware.com/map/jerusalem ... olysep.htm

Demolition 3) No such specifications have ever been shown to actually exist. I really don't have to disprove something the existence of which has never been evidenced by anything other than the word of Andre Douzet. Common sense tells us that if there was really a tomb of Jesus in Perillos and Sauniere told the model maker exactly where it was, he'd have to kill him after the model was completed. There are no reports of such a murder.

Demolition 4) Ditto about it being based only on Douzet's word. I'll let you calculate the odds yourself against an actual place existing which is a perfect inverse of the Holy Sepulchre site. I think we'll need a little more than Douzet's word to counteract those odds. Of course, the tombs would have to be on the inside of a bowl shaped depression in the ground to be the inverse of the Holy Sepulchre topography. Could have a few flooding problems there, I would think. Basically, the tombs would be in a small lake.

Here's a copy of a post I originally put on another thread I this forum. I thought it would be more appropriate here since it covers most of the aspects of the Douzet theory in one shot.

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;

Here's a good article about the Douzet hoax; http://www.renneslechateau.com/anglais/octonovo.htm

Very much outdated.

You don`t see a connection to Jesus or Joseph in the 2 iron spikes found out there? Joseph saved those from the crucifixion and was buried with them himself.

They're simply Roman nails. France was full of Romans in the past, therefore, it would be unusual NOT to find such nails. Why would you assume that any Roman nails would be from the crucifixion? I'll give Douzet credit for metal detecting skills.