Williams wrote:

There is only one ruined watchtower up there, as far as I'm aware.

"... the small ruin of the watchtower which crowns the mountain of Blanchefort."

In a nutshell, the highest point on the Roc de Blanchefort.  Anywhere else on that rock just seems arbitrary, in my opinion.

Williams wrote:

What several assumptions have I made?

Some R-le-C authors (including one I used to be in frequent contact with) have suggested the possibility that the Tour Magdala might have been built on the site of an ancient monument of some kind, or perhaps a former place of Pagan worship, or whatever. I doubt there's any evidence to support the notion, but I suppose it can't be ruled out absolutely.

Also, I should point out that it was Henry Lincoln - not I - who determined that it be the Tour Magdala which fixes the Rennes-le-Château point of the Pentacle of Mountains. I quote:

    "Point A [of the Pentacle of Mountains] is fixed upon Saunière's Tour Magdala at Rennes-le-Château." (Key To The Sacred Pattern, page 185)

Williams wrote:

He was not "on the northern apex of his pentagram". He was near the edge of an escarpment; the actual intersection point (which I call P1), or the apex if you prefer, is several hundred metres away (I've been there). In the one e-mail communication I received from David Wood many years ago, he said (in response to me asking what it was he was supposedly surveying in that photo) that it is sometimes necessary to perform a "ressection". Nevertheless, he may well have just been posing for the photograph.

The IGN would have used a combination of ground trig and, when it became possible, aerial survey. Now they use mostly aerial survey and GPS for large-scale horizontal mapping.

What is your trade and why do you think you can do a better job than an expert in this particular field?

I think we both hold David Wood in high regard, but his unquestioned expertise does not - as far as I am aware - extend into GPS survey (I wouldn't go so far as to label myself an expert in GPS survey either, but I do have many hours of experience, and I feel that I had done an adequate amount of research on the subject).

It's worth mentioning that, for all David Wood's technical expertise, he did not publish any geographical coordinates (in any shape or form) in any of his books (GENISIS, GENESET or Poussin's Secret), or magazine articles (eg. NEXUS). I very strongly suspect that if he had had coordinates (from his surveys), then he would have published them. No coordinates for any of the markers of the Circle of Circles, no coordinates for the centre of the Circle of Churches, no surveyed angles, no lengths, and he was almost certainly unaware that the church at Serres (one of the churches of the Circle of Churches) was mapped too far south by the IGN (the error is evident on the so-called fugitive maps he produced, one or two of which I still have). I don't believe that he actually had any coordinates (other than those he may have measured off a map), and with good reason. Shortly after I first met his co-author in 1996, I asked "Where are the coordinates?" because I was starting to take an interest in Wood's geometry, and I wanted to check accuracy, amongst other things. I was assured that David Wood had obtained coordinates, but I've always thought it strange that not even his numerically literate co-author had any of them (he had to resort to measuring them from a map). Nearly ten years later:   neither hint nor sign of those coordinates.

I believe that I was the first person to obtain (in September 1999) and publish accurate coordinates for the locations of David Wood's 'Extended Pentagram' (and they are coordinates that *anyone* can check with a GPS receiver). Those coordinates allowed me - at long last - to calculate the angles and line lengths, and reliably assess the accuracy of the figure.

So, to summarise:   Whilst I could hardly gainsay David Wood with regards to trigonometrical or aerial survey (he is, after all, a British Army-trained tertiary trig surveyor), I - not he - was the first to obtain accurate coordinates for the locations in his geometry.

Williams wrote:

I think his definition (page 185 of Key To The Sacred Pattern) is unequivocal enough, and I've followed it to the letter. I don't think I've made any mistakes there.

Roscoe wrote:

If you are not prepared to back up your claim with action then don't make it the insinuation that you can make any pattern. Please be advised that any bluffs you make regarding this matter will be called. The proof or otherwise of this depends on your ability to randomly reproduce it. You appear to have decided that you can't and the insinuation is completely off the top of your head with no factual data to support your insinuation. I regard that you have conceded your point that patterns can be made out of anything and that this particular pattern reported by Lincoln, Wood and others is by default, valid.

And I've never said that I can "make any pattern". Where did I say that? I certainly didn't suggest it.

Let me reiterate:   I am not taking you up on your challenge because it's pointless and it's burdensome. It is too much work for me, sorry.

Roscoe wrote:

All of the churches within an 8 miles radius, make a pattern out of them. The request is quite clear. We have a little obfuscation from you here methinks.

I have sub-metre accurate coordinates for the trig point at La Pique (and a number of other locations) which one can use as a means of testing (admittedly quite roughly) the accuracy of consumer-grade GPS receivers like the Garmin etrex, Garmin 12, or whathaveyou. Comparing position fixes obtained with a Garmin etrex, to those obtained with the Trimble ProXRS, has never showed - over multiple separate visits - a difference greater than 4 metres. The cheap GPS units - thanks to the removal of Selective Availability - give position fixes within 4 metres of that obtained with the survey-grade ProXRS (which cost several thousand pounds). If GPS were not accurate in a mountainous environment (as you insist), then there is simply *no way* that I could have repeatedly obtained near-identical results with three independent GPS receivers, over multiple visits.

As for La Pique not being the central mountain of the Pentacle of Mountains, well, I agree... but here is what Henry Lincoln has written on the matter:

"Lines were drawn on the map to fix the central point [of the pentagon of mountains]. Again the seemingly impossible happened. At the centre of the huge pentagon marked out by the five peaks is yet another mountain. It is called La Pique." (The Holy Place, page 71)

"The defining of the centre of the star [the Pentacle of Mountains], however, produces still one more startling and concrete fact. The location is marked by yet another mountain. It is called La Pique. Yet another - and amazing - coincidence." (Key To The Sacred Pattern, page 131)

"Six mountains arranged in so precise and meaningful pattern - the odds against such a natural occurrence must be astronomical. It would be interesting to know of any other place quite like it anywhere in the world." (The Holy Place, page 71)

"...the highest point [of La Pique] does not lie with exactitude upon the geometric intersection. It is some 250 yards to the south east. A first reaction is one of disappointment. But then, I must ask, should one expect a miracle?" (Key To The Sacred Pattern, page 131)

Roscoe wrote:

Clearly you appear to be expecting a miracle

Williams wrote:

There are no such thing as miracles.

When you are on the *top* of a mountain, or a high ridge, one usually enjoys (if there are no trees or significantly higher mountains in the locality) an unobstructed view of the sky (or at least most of it). GPS receivers rely on an unobstructed view of a significant portion of the sky. That is what you usually get when you are situated on the top of a mountain or a high ridge. The five locations which define the points of the Pentacle of Mountains are (arguably) mountain tops. Such locations are usually ideal for taking GPS readings. Do you accept that? As I have already said, in the case of many of the locations relevant to Wood and Lincoln's geometry, I have undertaken multiple visits to those locations, and have obtained practically identical position fixes. The probability of obtaining practically identical position fixes by random chance over multiple visits is *extremely* small. Do you understand and accept that?

I am quite aware of the problems of multipath errors, ionospheric distortion, poor satellite geometry, clock errors, etc., etc.

Of course, not all locations relevant to Wood or Lincoln's geometry happen to be on mountain tops, but so long as the GPS receiver has a direct 'line of sight' between it and *at least* 4 satellites, and if the satellite geometry is favourable, then reliable position fixes can (and certainly have) been obtained.

Roscoe wrote:   It's becoming tedious for me too especially when I give you references and you don't bother reading them.

Such locations are usually ideal for taking GPS readings. Do you accept that?

Roscoe wrote:  

No I don't

Roscoe wrote:

I would prefer you used the method that the original IGN mapmakers used. GPS is optimised for sea level, Blanchefort is 467 metres above sea level, couple this with a slant range to a satellite of several thousand miles and the curvature of the earth and you have error. At least up to 100 metres which is within the range of error we are talking about regarding the pentacle but perhaps acceptable for normal use.

As for GPS, I'm afraid you're out of your depth. You say that Blanchefort is 467 metres above sea level (my edition of the 1:25,000-scale Quillan map indicates 476 metres above MSL - but let's not split hairs), and that "couple this with a slant range to a satellite of several thousand miles and the curvature of the earth and you have error." This is really bad news. Modern aircraft - many of which rely heavily on GPS for navigation - are in big trouble then, aren't they? I mean, if the error at just 467 metres above MSL is "at least up to 100 metres", then surely it must be several kilometres by the time we get up to altitudes like 30,000 ft., right?

Unless something is wrong with the receiver or unless there's bad satellite geometry, multipath, malfunctioning satellites, severe ionospheric interference, wrong datum, etc., etc. - then the error even at 467 metres above MSL, is never anywhere near 100 metres (the GPS system would be next-to-useless if that were the case). When I state that a pair of coordinates are accurate to, for example, 5 metres, then I am confident that that is the case. Don't forget (and I've said this enough times already), that in the case of the Pentacle of Mountains, I have visited each location several times with a GPS unit (over several years) and got practically the same coordinates each time.  I just don't understand why that means nothing to you.

I am now no longer prepared to argue any further with you on this point because it is one that will never resolve. We are just going to have to agree to differ.

- Churches
- Châteaux
- Ruined châteaux
- Mountaintops / hilltops
- Road/track junctions
- Calvaires
- Springs
 

Roscoe wrote:

And all of them well known sites of Pagan ritual. With regard to the churches and Chateau's these were most likely placed over previous megalithic sites which formed a previous sacred site. Also as you are not aware of how the pattern was placed then you may not be aware as to why a structure like a chateau was position.

Williams wrote:

I could argue with you on this until I'm blue in the face.   You will never - ever - accept even the mere possibility that Henry Lincoln and David Wood's geometry might have occurred by random chance.

Christian Churches are normally placed North/South, tell me why this should a difference to the Christian worshippers?

Roscoe wrote:

If you are serious about getting to the bottom of this then you must take these things into consideration The pattern is a throwback to pre Christian worship and dolmans and Menhirs are everywhere. The pattern has been inadvertently enhanced by the more recent church buildings. The builders of these churches probably had no idea regarding the pattern they were inadvertently forming.

There are hundreds of Calvaires. Why did the Holy Roman church see fit to place them here. Why? Because the locals were Pagan that's why and worshipped these things. We also have the more recent Cathars of course.

In other words, I have visited Le Bézu church twice on different days with a GPS unit, and obtained practically identical position fixes. That's unlikely to be coincidence. Comparing the GPS coordinates with those obtained from the map, it became clear that the map symbol is displaced by approx. 1.6 mm (the church symbol is too far east).

Roscoe wrote:

That's one what's the other. GPS will give you one reading. Probably accurately give you a Lat/Long in this case. What are you comparing this with? The map? Try using David Wood's method with a theodolite.

I have to say that I'm having some difficulty following your logic. First you declare that accurate GPS coordinates can't be obtained in mountainous terrain, but then you say, "GPS will give you one reading. Probably accurately give you a Lat/Long in this case."   Why in this case?   What's different about it?

By the way, we are rarely interested in lat/long coordinates; orthogonal grid coordinates are so much more convenient.

In other words, I have visited Le Bézu church twice on different days with a GPS unit, and obtained practically identical position fixes. That's unlikely to be coincidence. Comparing the GPS coordinates with those obtained from the map, it became clear that the map symbol is displaced by approx. 1.6 mm (the church symbol is too far east).

Roscoe wrote:

You really don't seem to know much about surveying do you?

For your information map surveyors do not use GPS they use trig points and a theodolite. GPS simply isn't accurate enough. However you start from a known point which you designate the datum point.

Many - perhaps most - modern map surveyors use differential GPS positioning for horizontal mapping, and possibly even for levels too if their application can tolerate a metre-or-two of uncertainty (but perhaps even that has improved by now). I'm sure that there are applications which require ultra-precise angle and/or distance measurement where a theodolite might be preferred.

I'm going to save myself some energy here. Please refer to these links (I presume that you can read French):

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitelle
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borie
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadole
http://www.techno-science.net/?onglet=glossaire&definition=6877

Roscoe wrote:

I see all of these authors doesn't answer the question either. I asked what their purpose is and what their name means. You didn't answer and they didn't answer either. Here's what they said:

[snip poor translation]

Roscoe wrote:

I see all of these authors doesn't answer the question either. I asked what their purpose is and what their name means. You didn't answer and they didn't answer either.

[snip]

Yes yes very nice very pretty. Now back to my question : Their PURPOSE is............................?

To bring the head closer, what head are we bringing closer? I didn't ask what a Borie was nor did I ask what a Cadole is but thanks for providing it anyway. There's never been any water on this hillside and yet the default answer has been they're for growing vines. Remind me not to invest in your vineyard.

Well your solution to this appears to be lets AVOID awkward questions about the capitelles which may expose your ignorance.

Here is the mundane reality:   those dry-stone huts were built from the rocks and stones dug out of the ground by farmers wanting to plant grape vines, or olive trees, or to clear the ground for pasture. The more ideal flatter stones (further prepared if necessary) were used in the construction of the huts, whilst the others - perhaps awkwardly shaped or of lesser quality, were used to build the bounding walls of the vineyard, or olive grove, pasture field, or whatever. In the case of those so-called 'capitelles' at the Grand Camp, they were most likely to have served vineyards. The huts provided shelter from wind and rain, sudden storms, and the sun during the hottest part of the day. I know just how refreshingly cool their interiors are on a hot day because I've sat in one (yes - on a hot day). During colder parts of the year, the south-facing orientation of the hut helped to better illuminate and warm the interior (if the sun was shining, obviously). Some were also used to store tools and equipment (some still are!), and occasionally to shelter animals. Some were permanently inhabited. Many were built by the farmers themselves, although there were specialists who earned a living from building them. They were being built until the early 1900s, and most are no older than two hundred years. There is absolutely nothing mysterious or unexplained about them. They don't date back millenia as some people prefer to imagine. There are hundreds - if not thousands - of similar structures in various condition across southern France.

Occam's razor might be helpful to us here, Roscoe.

As for your assertion that "There's never been any water on this hillside and yet the default answer has been they're for growing vines":   Hmmm... that's funny - I'm sure that I passed a vineyard (or two) during a wander through the Grand Camp last year. And, it just so happens that I filmed the event. I'll upload the video footage to my website in the next day, or two.

By the way, the Year 2000 edition of my 1:25,000-scale Quillan map shows at least three vineyards on the Grand Camp, and a spring called "La Fontaine de Lauzi".   Never any water, you say?

To bring the head closer, what head are we bringing closer?

Le terme “capitelle” vient de l'occitan : sans doute principalement de la forme gardoise « capitèla » (fem.), à rapprocher de « caput », la tête et par extension ce qui recouvre et protège. « Capitèla » désigne originellement une cabane de vigne en pierre sèche.

I understand it to mean that the word capitèla relates to the Latin caput (head)... but then my French leaves a lot to be desired, too.

Check out this page (sorry, it's in French - again) for a fairly detailed, and possibly well-informed discussion on the origins of the word capitelle, and others.