So the whole story of Rennes le Chateau was allegedly started by three confidence tricksters way back in the 1960s: - Pierre Plantard, Philippe de Chèrisey and Gerard de Sède. You may also hear tales about how a resident of Rennes le Chateau, Noel Corbu, made up stories about how the French Curé Abbé Béranger Saunière became exceptionally rich after discovering a secret at his church.     

This website will prove otherwise and that contrary to what you will hear on mainstream media there is an incredible story still to be told at Rennes le Chateau.

Plantard's interest appears to have been started by a newspaper article written by Gerard de Sède regarding what was termed 'The Gisors Affair' when a Templar treasury was allegedly found by a man who had been a guard at Gisors Castle during the World War II. He had told writer and journalist Gerard de Sède about it when he had come to work on de Sède's pig farm -

Read about it here

The Priory of Sion is (or was) real and this is beyond any doubt. It is also known as the Ordre de la Rose Croix Veritas (the title of this website) a definite reference to the Rosicrucian movement, a movement predicted by Nostradamus, a former resident of Alet le Bains just north of Rennes le Chateau.

You will hear that already people were asking for permission to dig at Rennes le Chateau long before Noel Corbu and Pierre Plantard and that you can completely remove all the people previously mentioned from the story and you will still have a story.

You will hear how a man called Jean Luc Chaumeil, a self promoting "expert" on the Solar Temple cult and a man who believes that aliens are running this planet, claims he has proof that the Priory of Sion three contrived to make the whole thing up.

WE CALL ON JEAN LUC CHAUMEIL TO TURN HIS VERBAL ALLEGATIONS INTO DEMONSTRABLE FACT BY ALLOWING THESE DOCUMENTS HE SAYS HE HAS TO BE PUT FORWARD FOR INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY.

Remembering of course that he must also produce proof that he is the legal owner of these documents and give a valid testimony as to how he came to own them. Unchallenged allegations against people who are now dead and unable to defend themselves are not the actions of a man who deserves respect. Why people now deceased should give over their full confessions to a man we know they didn't like is something that will also require some careful explanation from Chaumeil.

We also demand that arch debunker Paul Smith cease making things up and touting personal attacks as some kind of reasoned argument and apply himself to actually publicly defending some of the made up accusations he is making on his website.

A new development

Paul Smith has a forum on his website.

Nothing has changed however because he will only allow yesmen and sycophants onto the forum. He is still terrified of anyone who makes an argument against him. His facts don't stand up when challenged you see and he knows it.

  Indeed Paul Smith has attempted to trade facts again here only to have them once again systematically taken apart eventually spamming the forum in an attempt to have himself banned in order to have an excuse to run. There is little wonder that the guy is absolutely terrified to let anyone with an opposing view onto his forum.

He attempted to trade facts here for a short while as well, eventually after a very short while he resorted to name calling for a while he eventually chickened out completely when he realised his argument was being systematically taken apart. When I embarrassed him publicly for running away he came back again and began spamming thinking that this amounted to reasoned argument.

Paul Smith has no argument that will stand up to being challenged, he runs and hides only in forums that consist of persons with little knowledge of this subject, that way he can thrive on their ignorance. If you disagree with this then challenge him to make me a member of his forum, I'll take him apart. You may be thinking that he may take me apart, there's only one way to find out isn't there? I'm up for it but he isn't, doesn't that tell you something? Paul Smith's reputation only survives because he hides.

The Paul Smith discussion forum where no discussion is likely to occur.

We however do discuss all aspects of this. For instance we discuss the geometric (Earth Measurement) pattern denial and the phenomena which, although it is obvious that major cities of the world and medieval cathedral and church designs have clearly (and provable) been designed with Hermetic thought included in their construction, it seems, by academic canonical decree, that this cannot possibly occur in rural areas dating back to these same medieval times. Also that dolmans, menhirs and other megolithic structures simply don't exist in the scientific world and warrant no serious investigation beyond glib arbitrary explanations made up on the spot with little study or thought. Indeed it has been found that qualified engineers have made some incredible claims in books they have written which beggars belief at their ignorance.

We encourage you to disagree and give your opinions, we are not afraid and speak our truth calmly and openly. Indeed we are not even afraid to be proved wrong, it's just that anyone who dares to have an open and reasoned argument (and they are few) up until now has signally failed to produce any facts that has successfully managed to produce anything beyond personal opinion and conjecture. It's a belief system they have, devoted fidelity without evidence - a religion almost. All of their so-called facts are flawed and facts are nothing more than undisputed evidence and we are disputing some of them. You may say that if you want to believe something then no amount of evidence will convince us, but look at the facts, it isn't us who are running away. Surely if your argument has facts that can stand up to close scrutiny and we cannot be moved from our belief system, then it should be us who are running away. Here we are brazen and up front if you have a point go for it and tell us about it, you may be successful.

What's the problem? The problem is that the arguments against the validity of there being a mystery here  simply aren't good enough, that's the problem. And if one were to go through this website one can plainly see this. The detractor's arguments do not come out clean from the mixer when placed under scrutiny. Even researchers sometimes quoted in a positive way by the likes of Paul Smith ALL agree that this story is not mundane and does contain elements of a genuine mystery.

If you have anything at all to say then place your comments here but don't expect an easy ride.