Priory of Sion Parchments and
the Poussin painting.
Myths perpetrated by Rennes Mystery detractors.
That Philippe de Cherisey made up the parchments.
A more detailed treatise on this can be found here
however here are the bullet points:
De Chèrisey was using a 26 letter alphabet when a 25 letter alphabet is the only
one that yields the correct decryption.
He never mentioned the incredible outcome of the final text being the Hautpoul
tomb text plus PS PRAECUM.
He never explained what he meant by AD GENESARETH.
Conclusion: Philippe de Chèrisey didn't do these things because he didn't
know about them and he didn't know about them because he wasn't the author.
Jean Luc Robin had said in his book that Philippe de Chèrisey had admitted to
him that he had made up the parchments. Here is the piece in Robin's book where
he says he admitted it:
"When I returned to Rennes-les-Bains in 1961 and learned that, following the
death of the Abbé, the Marie of Rennes-le-Chateau had burned down (along with
all its archives), I took advantage of the opportunity to invent the story that
the Mayor had an exact copy made of the Parchments that the Abbé had discovered.
And so, at the suggestion of Francis Blanche, I set myself the task of making a
copy employing a code based on some passages from the Gospels, and then decoding
what I had just encoded. Finally, by a roundabout route, I delivered the fruits
of my labours to Gerard de Sède. This document has had a life of its own beyond
my wildest dreams."
Quoted from Jean Robin's "La Colline Envoutee" (Guy Tredaniel, 1982)
The archives were not destroyed in the fire. Three notarised documents were sent
to Lloyds bank in 1954 and it is admitted that these genealogy documents do
exist. How come these weren't destroyed?
But look what de Cherisey said here:
"I set myself the task of making a copy employing a code based on some passages
from the Gospels, and then decoding what I had just encoded."
HE MADE A COPY. A COPY OF WHAT? AN ORIGINAL? Notice he didn't say he made a new
parchment. de Cherisey is implying here that there were genuine documents and he
knew about them.
He decoded what he just encoded? But we know that he didn't know how the
code worked. See
Here
"I delivered the fruits of my labours to Gerard de Sède."
But de Sède has put the decoding method in his book Le Tresor Maudit and got it
completely wrong.
Something is wrong here.
Here is an extract from 'The Key to the Sacred Pattern
by Henry Lincoln describing a meeting with Philippe de Cherisey. (pp154)
QUOTE
"The day is ending, but it is fine.
De Cherisey expresses a desire to take a stroll and a lengthy preambulation
end on a bench in the Tuileries Gardens. He is still regaling me with well
told - and often very funny - anecdotes. But I have more on my mind than
entertainment. We are getting on well and the atmosphere is friendly. At
last, with time passing and nothing to lose, I decide to put my request
baldly. 'Can I take another look at the parchment photographs?' With only
minimal hesitation, he opens his briefcase and hands them to me. 'Why add
the marks' I ask 'To amuse the laity' he replied 'But why?' I insist. He
shrugs 'I'm an entertainer.' It is clear that I am to get no straight
answers. But - perhaps simply because it was to hand - he adds another
fragment. Picking a few sheets from his case, he says: 'I'm writing an
explanation of the codes. I'll send you a copy. You'll be amused' But I
am never to see it. 1 Nor am I ever to get any closer to the
'parchment originals'. Sadly Philippe de Cherisey died suddenly in July
1985.
1 There is reason to suspect that this
document may have been part of the haul of stolen Priory papers' which
figured in the Chaumeil imbroglio"
END OF QUOTE
Here is Philippe de Chèrisey talking to Henry Lincoln in
1984 and yet de Cherisey had already admitted to Jean Luc Robin in 1982 that
he copied the parchments and Robin had already made it public in his book
"La Colline Envoutee" . Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln had researchers and many
many readers and are French speakers themselves, how come this so-called
confession by de Cherisey never got to them? But Lincoln talks about de
Cherisey making an explanation of the codes in 1984. Why; De Sède had
already explained how the codes work (wrongly actually) in his book Le
Tresor Maudit? Why did de Cherisey see the need to explain it again to
Lincoln? Was it because he noticed that de Sède had got it wrong? And why
did de Sède get it wrong anyway, the decoding technique had supposedly come
from de Chèrisey? Why didn't de Chèrisey say that de Sède had got it wrong
to Lincoln and why is it still wrong in Chaumeil's Stone and Paper?
That Pierre Plantard de St Clair admitted he made up the whole story
Plantard ONLY admitted in court in 1993 that he didn't have
proof that Pelat was the Prieuré de Sion Grand Master. He has NEVER admitted
that he made the whole thing up.
That the Prieuré de Sion not longer operates.
The Priory of Sion is alive and well and is discussed
here by Gino Sandri in 2003.
Gino Sandri was Pierre Plantard's secretary.
Incidentally Dan Brown used Sandri's name as Sister Sandrine
in his book The Da Vinci Code.
That the whole thing was made up by Pierre Plantard, Philippe
de Cherisey with some literal assistance from Gerard de Sède.
One thing that seems to get passed over by Priory of Sion
detractors is who were the Grand Masters between 1963 and 1981. The Dossiers
Secret show the last Grand Master as Jean Cocteau and they only show the year he
was elected not the year he died. Why if Pierre Plantard was trying to project
himself as the POS Grand Master didn't he put himself onto the list? But Cocteau
died in 1963 and we know that Pierre Plantard claims he wasn't elected until
1981. So who were the Grand Masters for the 18 intervening years?
Apparently we are told that it was a triumvirate of Gaylord
Freeman, Pierre Plantard and Antonio Merzagora. This information did not come
from Plantard it came from an article, an apparently doctored text, written in a
French Magazine Bonne Soirée. It had been doctored from a text
written by one of the BBC's researchers for their programme The Shadow of the
Templars. After the researcher's article had been translated into French
there were a few additions and a copy was sent to the programme's producer at
the BBC who for some reason did not mention it to Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln. It
was Philippe de Chèrisey no less who eventually told them about the article and
sent them a French translation. This occurred in 1981, the year Plantard is
supposed to have been elected and his election had been reported in the French
press.
Apparently Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln had been told
that an Abbé François Ducaud-Bourget had been the Grand Master, but he denied
it. de Chèrisey had that he not been elected "by a full quorum" and had
disqualified himself anyway.
A brief biography of Abbé
Ducaud-Bourget can be found
here:
Here is an extract.
François Ducaud-Bourget was born in 1897 and trained for the
priesthood at—predictably enough—the Seminary of Saint Sulpice. He is
thus likely to have known many of the Modernists there at the
time—and, quite possibly, Emile Hoffet. Subsequently he was the
conventual's chaplain of the Sovereign Order of Malta. For his
activities during the Second World War he received the Resistance
Medal and the Croix de Guerre. Today he is recognized as a
distinguished man of letters—a member of the Académie Française, a
biographer of important French Catholic writers such as Paul Claudel
and François Mauriac, and a highly esteemed poet in his own right.
Like
Monsignor Lefebvre the Abbé Ducaud-Bourget assumed a stance of
militant opposition to Pope Paul VI. Like Monsignor Lefebvre he is an
adherent of the
Tridentine
Mass. Like Monsignor Lefebvre he has proclaimed himself a
"traditionalist" adamantly opposed to ecclesiastical reform or any
attempt to "modernize" Roman Catholicism. On May 22, 1976, he was
forbidden to administer confession or absolution—and like Monsignor
Lefebvre he boldly defied the interdict imposed on him by his
superiors. On February 27, 1977, he led a thousand Catholic
traditionalists in their occupation of the Church of
Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris.
The bottom line here is why the confusion?
If it was all made up by Plantard, de Chèrisey and de Sède why
the incoherency here when everything else seems to be well researched and
presented well? Why didn't Plantard simply place himself at the end of list
after Cocteau's death?
Here's a quote from
The Messianic Legacy written by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln that may
clear things up (or not):
Perhaps the most important person to the doctored text
of _____ article was a quote from an individual cited only as 'Lord
Blackford' ______ had never interviewed him, never met him, never even
heard of him. As amended, however, her text stated that she had done all
three:
"A few years ago, I was able to have an interview with
one of the 121 high-ranking members of the Prieuré de Sion, the Honourable
Lord Blackford."
In the statement ascribed to him which follows
Blackford appears unusually knowledgable[sic], as well as unusually
forthcoming, about the Prieuré de Sion. He even hints at a potentially
major schism within the Order dating 1955 or 1956.
"An association called the Prieuré de Sion was indeed
constituted in France around 1956, with specific objectives. It had a
legal existence, it was registered in the Journal officiel, it was
dissolved after the events in France of 1958, when Plantard de saint Clair
was secretary General of the Committees for Public Safety. This new
organisation of 1956 reflected an internal crisis in the venerable Sion
Prioratus, founded around 1099 in Jerusalem. It was the reforms of Jean
Cocteau in 1955 which caused the creation [of a new organisation] by
denying members of the Order their anonymity. At the time, all members
were compelled to furnish a birth certificate and a notarised signature. A
necessity perhaps....but an infringement of freedom.
I will remind people that it was Philippe de Chèrisey who
bought this to the attention of Lincoln and co. De Chèrisey is bringing their
attention to an article which states that the Prieuré de Sion was dissolved in
1958 when Cocteau was presumably still the Grand Master. If he was instrumental
in making a hoax, why would he do this?
The Dossiers Secret show the last Grand Master as Jean
Cocteau. Perhaps the Priory of Sion was dissolved in 1958 or more likely
reconstituted when some members refused to follow the dictates of Jean Cocteau.
In view of many POS members having links to World War Two
special operations (SOE; forerunner of many national security agencies like the
CIA) it is not beyond the possibility that the confused release of information
is a disinformation campaign designed to deflect serious academic investigation
into what is after all an earth shattering revelation.
One of Paul Smith's gurus
Bernardo
Sanchez de Mottasays
that not only did de Cherisey make up the parchments1 but he also
altered the Blanchefort tombstone Here's what he said:
"After I investigated all these tracks and of presented the
facts most excellent, on the picture of Poussin, "the Shepherds of the Arcadia",
do not have great thing to add to the fact of that we are before a work of art
of master. It is not possible, and it will never be possible, to have the
certainty of that Poussin not even planeou the pentagram geometric
structure that Prof. Cornford "He discovered"2, if he thought
nalgum type of geometric structure. In Shugborough Hall we find some
indications of an interest had in times for the painting of Poussin and Teniers,
and nothing more. The drawing of the rock to tumular horizontal of the last
Countess of Blanchefort certifies the malice of its author well, Philippe de
Chérisey, without scruples3 in relation to modify a previous
drawing, thus propagating an adulterated version4. In this version of
Chérisey the alterations for it are well clear introduced, that they proposed to
induce a linking of the mystery of Rennes to the painting of Poussin and,
possibly, the Shugborough Hall, that would serve as "misleading reinforcement"5
Concluding, the linking of Rennes the Poussin and Teniers was suggested to the
public opinion through the book of journalist Gérard de Sède, "L'Or de Rennes",
where the fantasy history of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey, having
been consists for the first time this last author of the text of false
parchments and the adulterated drawing of the rock to tumular horizontal."
Such are the fantasies of the Rennes Mystery detractors.
Not true and this fact is PROVED beyond
doubt here
The Cornford pentagram does not take into
consideration the section of the painting outside of the frame which can fit a
pentacle, a hexagram and a seven sided figure onto the shepherd's staffs.
Character assassination and lies about
a man who is dead and can no longer defend himself. De Motta is a coward as well
as a liar.
How exactly did de Chèrisey get his hands
on the Blanchefort tombstone so he could alter it?
The Shugborough Hall bas-relief is from the mid 18th century
and indeed has it's own code associated with it. I had no idea Philippe de
Cherisey was 250 years old when he died.
