David Williams Page of his rebuttal to my objections to his
conclusion reference the Landscape Geometry surrounding Rennes-le-Chateau
May I first state the David Williams is currently the ONLY
person who has entered into a debate with me and I hereby give thanks to him for
doing so. I may not agree with his conclusions but I do respect him for
defending his position.
At the moment I cannot say the same for Paul Smith and
Jean-Luc-Chaumeil.
Here is his rebuttal page in full.
Roscoe's Rebuttal Answered
Here are
the original points of Roscoe's rebuttal (reproduced verbatim):
1.
Lincoln's pentacle of mountains is made up on three points position of
a Templar Commanderie. These are Bezu, Blanchefort and Rennes le
Chateau. Not by a random selection of Mountains. Whilst it is possibly
true that other mountains will form a pentacle this particular set of
mountains have been selected by the body of Knights normally
associated with this story. Whilst it is possible to get a pattern out
of anything it is less than possible if one is restricted to what one
can use in this pattern.
Make a
pattern out of similar pattern of churches in a similar number of
churches in London over a 8 mile radius. All of the churches in the
area are involved in the pattern in some way with no exceptions. So
your London proof MUST include ALL of the churches with no exceptions
and MUST be a justifiable figure i.e. Pentacle or Seal of Solomon.
2. GPS
is not accurate in mountainous terrain. Due to it's line of sight
nature its spatial inaccuracy and the US government's 'selective
availability of signals programme'. (This is the US government's
deliberate degrading of the signal accuracy to deny it use from forces
hostile to the US.)
3. This
particular Pentacle of mountains lines up with other features like the
grotto at Arques and the Paris Meridian and the grid.
4. The
inaccuracies may well be in the Quillan map. The position of Antugnac
Church was found to be in error on the 1979 Quillan 25000 map and had
to be revised.
5.
Following the clues in the landscape led him the Great Camp north of
Caustaussa. Lincoln would not have found these without the layout
leading him to it.
6. The
holes cut in the walls of the circular churches in Bornholm at
seemingly random points of the compass and the similar ones in the
walls of the Tour d'Alchemie in the ruined Chateau at Rennes serve
what purpose?
I have not answered point 6 as my research is currently not concerned
with Bornholm, and as for those holes in the walls of the so-called Alchemist's
Tower of the Chβteau d'Hautpoul, I suspect that Roscoe sees
greater significance in them than there probably really is.
In order to keep this page to manageable proportions I will
leave the reader to take the necessary links provided above.
Or read the linked pages below
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
15th June 2006
Conclusion
Because
these people are absolutely terrified of entering into an open debate.
They tell lies and then dive for the nearest rock to crawl under unless
someone challenges what they say.
This site is not afraid of debate even if they seem to be.
(Roscoe, 7th May 2006)
I can now appreciate
why Paul Smith and Jean-Luc Chaumeil might have refused to correspond
with 'Roscoe' (assuming that he ever actually e-mailed any of them in
the first place). They probably realised early on what an utter
waste of time and energy he is, and made the intelligent decision of
ignoring him. How I now wish that I had done the same!
Throughout our 'debate',
most of Roscoe's assertions have either been plain wrong, dubious, or
highly speculative. He rarely - if ever - supported his assertions
with references to academic, scientific or other sensible and
trustworthy literature, or provided links to any such websites. And
although he tried to discredit my GPS coordinates and by implication
the various results derived from them, he never did state his own data
or measurements or any analyses based upon them. He is also not
averse to selectively quoting irrelevant documents that he has dredged
from the Internet if he thinks that it might support his case, or if
he believes it might fool his opponent.
Practically every
assertion he made relating to the GPS (Global Positioning System) was
factually incorrect. He claimed that there would be errors of up to
150 metres on my GPS coordinates (because, he said, they were obtained
in mountainous terrain). Never once did he actually demonstrate such
errors of that magnitude on or amongst any of my published, freely
available coordinates. And at no point did he indicate which
particular GPS coordinates were, in his view, significantly erroneous
or inaccurate. Nor did he demonstrate where any of my calculations
(distances and angles) based on GPS coordinates differed markedly from
that derived by direct measurement (with ruler, protractor, etc.) on
the Quillan map. And of course, he was unable to explain away the
generally very good agreement between my map-measured coordinates
(obtained with ruler or setsquare), and coordinates obtained by GPS
survey. All he could do was wave his arms around and blather about
errors allegedly induced by very long 'slant ranges' and the
'curvature of the earth' - neither of which are of direct concern in
GPS survey.
Roscoe's GPS
bloopers
GPS is not accurate in
mountainous terrain. Due to it's line of sight nature its spatial
inaccuracy and the US government's 'selective availability of signals
programme'...
For a start, 'Selective Availability'
was switched off in May 2000. The rest of his statement is also not
accurate.
GPS is optimised for sea
level...
Well, that was the first I had heard of it!
I sought opinion from the Usenet discussion groups
rec.aviation.piloting and alt.satellite.gps. Here are
some selected quotes from the replies:
Nonsense.
Your opponent in the debate is a ninny.
I
still don't know what it means for GPS to be 'optimised for sea
level'. It would be entertaining (though probably not educational)
to learn what the guy believes was done to 'optimise' GPS for sea
level.
That's
just plain BS. Just one example: The space shuttle uses GPS for
navigation. That should be plenty high to convince the poster
otherwise.
And this from alt.satellite.gps:
Obviously
your opponent doesn't know too much about GPS and how it works. GPS is
not optimized for any specific altitude and in fact works quite well
from sea level to low-Earth orbit. There are more difficulties in
determining your position while in the atmosphere but, excluding
satellite visibility obstruction from terrain, GPS works well at any
altitude.
Aircraft aren't using the
IGN map made with a theodolite they are using a map optimised to the
GPS system and this is the key point which seems to be passing you by.
A map optimised to the GPS system? Sensing that this was another
pig-ignorant outburst, I put his assertion to rec.aviation.piloting:
Utter
twaddle. There are no such maps.
Nonsense.
Aircraft that are equipped with GPS use the same charts that non-GPS
aircraft use.
To
address the question of optimized maps for aviation use ... he should
go to an outlet that sells aviation maps and ask for a GPS-optimized
map. I think that he will be surprised.
For your information map
surveyors do not use GPS they use trig points and a theodolite. GPS
simply isn't accurate enough.
The Ordnance Survey
said (paraphrasing from a private e-mail communication):
The
Ordnance Survey use various methods including trig points, GPS
and aerial photography.
And this from an Ordnance Survey document entitled 'A
guide to coordinate systems in Great Britain':
GPS
is the standard tool for precise surveying and mapping, used for all
Ordnance Survey precise surveying work. Some characteristics of GPS as
a surveying tool are:
* GPS is a
three-dimensional positioning system: a precise GPS fix yields
latitude, longitude and ellipsoid height.
* The
highest precision of GPS positions is around the 1 mm level
horizontally relative to a global datum. To achieve this requires
networks of permanently installed GPS receivers. Typical field GPS
survey gives accuracies of a few centimetres relative to a global
datum. Vertical position quality is generally about 2.5 times worse
than horizontal.
You can regularly expect a
150 metres error from this kind of terrain with GPS.
Codswallop.
There is no evidence of errors anywhere near that magnitude on any
of my GPS coordinates.
150 metres straight-line distance on the ground is 6 millimetres
on a 1:25000 scale map. Does he seriously believe that such errors
would have gone unnoticed?
. . . . .
I had begun to compile a summary of the many factually incorrect,
dubious or speculative assertions that Roscoe has made (expressed or
implied) during the course of our discussion, but I think that I have
already wasted enough of my time and energy on this guy.
In his tirade against those he believes are disseminators of
disinformation, Roscoe has only succeeded in making himself look like
a blathering ignoramous - short on facts, very long on opinion.
I am not conceited enough to claim 'victory', but I leave this
debate with my head held high. I'm not sure that Roscoe can say the
same.
David Williams.
The response of Rose Croix Veritas
The colour of the David Williams' page copied above has been
altered by me to distinguish it from my response.
Firstly please be informed that I am aware of the conversation
he is having
He seems to have been missing the whole point from day one.
Let me clear up one or two things here.
I'm not in any way disputing the absolute accuracy of GPS
when referenced to absolute Latitude and Longitude.
The original pentacle of mountains would have been made by
making line of sight observations to towers possibly carrying fire beacons
mounted onto mountain tops or by another method. The object of this exercise is
not to establish the accuracy but to establish whether or not groups of persons
un-named saw fit to map out the landscape with esoteric symbolism and how their
methods would have given them an accurate rendition of this geometry (geo-metry
- literally: Earth measurement). The architects of these patterns were not in
any way interested in absolute positioning on planet earth with regard to the
drawing of these sacred patterns.
Part of a collection of drawings by 17th century chemist,
physicist and inventor Robert Boyle
Listed as a Grand Master of the Priory of Sion in the Dossiers
Secrets.
Slant range errors can be introduced if the reference satellites
that are a far distance from the observers zenith. Because of earth curvature
and the height of mountains a slight error can be introduced should only three
satellites be visible.
There seems to be some confusion by him as to what constitutes
the exact apex point of the pentacle of mountains.
The pentacle of mountains isn't the end of the story. The
distance from each apex through the centre to the point where lines cross is
EXACTLY the same as the radius of the circle of churches around Esperaza and
therefore by a natural property of a circle any chord of the same radius drawn
on the circumference will, if repeated, describe a six-sided figure. This is the
same as the distance between the churches of Les Sauzils and St Ferriol. This of
course means that the triangle Esperaza: St Ferriol: Les Sauzils is an
equilateral triangle. Each side of this triangle being the same distance as the
distance from any apex of the original pentacle of mountains through the centre
of the pentacle terminating on the point where two lines cross.
More details here
Perhaps I should also point out that the churches of Granes
and Bugarach are not orientated East/West they point to Rennes-le-Chateau.
************************************
Let me now address the points raised by David Williams
GPS is not accurate in mountainous
terrain. Due to it's line of sight nature its spatial inaccuracy and the US
government's 'selective availability of signals programme'...
For a start, 'Selective Availability' was switched off in May 2000. The rest
of his statement is also not accurate.
The US is at war and still reserves the right to switch
it on and off at their own will and not inform you that they have done this.
GPS is optimised for sea level...
Well, that was the first I had heard of it! I sought opinion from the Usenet
discussion groups rec.aviation.piloting and alt.satellite.gps.
Here are some selected quotes from the replies:
Nonsense.
Your opponent in the debate is a ninny.
I still
don't know what it means for GPS to be 'optimised for sea level'. It would
be entertaining (though probably not educational) to learn what the guy
believes was done to 'optimise' GPS for sea level.
That's
just plain BS. Just one example: The space shuttle uses GPS for navigation.
That should be plenty high to convince the poster otherwise.
The space shuttle isn't interested
in it's absolute position in space, it is however interested in it's position
over a particular piece of land which happens to be at or relatively close to
sea level.
The earth isn't spherical, it is
oblate. It is flatter at the poles. How does a polar orbiting satellite
governed by Keplar's law compensate for this difference? How does an orbiting
satellite (or space shuttle) compensate for altitude of the observer when it
is situated off at one observer's horizon or the other (slant range)?
Bearing in mind that the top of the mountain will be tilted away from this
satellite because of the earth's curvature from a satellite so placed when
compared to the base of the mountain. The base of the mountain being its
Latitude and Longitude position.
Stick two cocktail sticks vertically into an orange. Now look at the orange.
Is the visible base of each stick the same distance away from each other as
the tops of each stick? Which is the correct surface position on the orange
for each stick, the top or the bottom?
The error in real life wont be anymore than 150 metres.
Aircraft aren't using the IGN map made
with a theodolite they are using a map optimised to the GPS system and this is
the key point which seems to be passing you by.
A map
optimised to the GPS system? Sensing that this was another pig-ignorant
outburst, I put his assertion to rec.aviation.piloting:
Utter
twaddle. There are no such maps.
Nonsense.
Aircraft that are equipped with GPS use the same charts that non-GPS
aircraft use.
To address
the question of optimized maps for aviation use ... he should go to an outlet
that sells aviation maps and ask for a GPS-optimized map. I think that he
will be surprised.
What these people are saying is that the original
mapmakers got it absolutely correct when they first made the map by using a
theodolite.
The earth isn't a sphere (it is flatter at the poles)
neither can its oblate surface be projected onto a two dimensional
surface without introducing some error. What is the difference between the
projection used by the IGN mapmakers and GPS?
The IGN map 3615 Quillan is a flat two dimensional
surface using
LAMBERTS CONICAL projection (it says so on the map). The SCALE (not
bearings) is ONLY correct along two parallels. These are 20 degrees North and 60
degrees North. Rennes-le-Chateau is42° 55' 41" N
GPS doesn't use CONICAL projection. The GPS lines
(shown in blue) on the 2347OT map have been corrected to fit on this map
last surveyed in 1988.
The phrase 'Eggs with Bananas' seems to have become
apparant again. I will accept their apology should they be mature enough to give
it. I do get more tolerant to this combination of ignorance and arrogance from
the youngens as I get older.
For your information map surveyors do
not use GPS they use trig points and a theodolite. GPS simply isn't accurate
enough.
The Ordnance Survey said (paraphrasing from a
private e-mail communication):
The
Ordnance Survey use various methods including trig points, GPS
and aerial photography.
And this from an Ordnance Survey document entitled 'A guide to
coordinate systems in Great Britain':
GPS is the
standard tool for precise surveying and mapping, used for all Ordnance Survey
precise surveying work. Some characteristics of GPS as a surveying tool are:
* GPS is a
three-dimensional positioning system: a precise GPS fix yields latitude,
longitude and ellipsoid height.
* The highest
precision of GPS positions is around the 1 mm level horizontally relative to a
global datum. To achieve this requires networks of permanently installed GPS
receivers. Typical field GPS survey gives accuracies of a few centimetres
relative to a global datum. Vertical position quality is generally about 2.5
times worse than horizontal.
Yes and this would very interesting if was
actually relevant to the problem we are discussing. The map in question IGN
3615 Quillan. The actual survey for this map hasn't been upgraded since 1988.
A little before GPS got underway methinks.
Perhaps I should have said 'did not use GPS'
instead of 'do not use GPS'. I forgot the preponderance towards pedantry
usually adopted by persons who have run out of reasoned argument.
You can regularly expect a 150 metres
error from this kind of terrain with GPS.
Codswallop.
There is no evidence of errors anywhere near that magnitude on any of my
GPS coordinates.
150 metres straight-line distance on the ground is 6 millimetres on
a 1:25000 scale map. Does he seriously believe that such errors would have
gone unnoticed?
But you can when you compare your readings to
those made by other methods and projected differently old boy. I have actually
been saying this all along but it seems to have gone un-noticed in your effort
to avoid the realisation that you've actually been wasting your time for all
these years. You've actually proven nothing.
I had begun to compile a
summary of the many factually incorrect, dubious or speculative assertions
that Roscoe has made (expressed or implied) during the course of our
discussion, but I think that I have already wasted enough of my time and
energy on this guy.
In his tirade against those he believes are
disseminators of disinformation, Roscoe has only succeeded in making himself
look like a blathering ignoramous - short on facts, very long on opinion.
I am not conceited enough to claim 'victory', but I leave this debate with
my head held high. I'm not sure that Roscoe can say the same.
What do you think now?
The object of the exercise was never to fix the
absolute accuracy or otherwise of the points. It was to decide whether a body of
people fixed points on their landscape by Line of Sight. This can ONLY be
checked against a similar method.
Conclusion
Get a theodolite and get a qualified surveyor to
check things for you. David Wood is a qualified surveyor and mapmaker.
David Williams made the statement that a pattern can be made up using any
object.
I challenged him to repeat the pattern using any object of his choice using the
same number of objects.
