PROOF THAT

PHILIPPE DE CHERISEY

COULD NOT HAVE WRITTEN THE SHEPHERDESS PARCHMENT

Above shows a picture of Jean-Luc-Chaumeil holding up what he alleges is Pierre Plantard's confession that Philippe de Cherisey was the author. This was shown in the TV programme 'History of a Mystery. The first anomaly to point out is that the two pieces of paper are clearly different and that the bottom parchment (The Dagobert Parchment) has the word 'Photocopie' clearly written by Pierre Plantard. Shown below:

If this bottom document is a photocopy where is the original?

1. Philippe de Cherisey NEVER confessed publicly to writing the parchments or as far we know to the writers of 'Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' and the 'The Messianic Legacy'. Although in The Messianic Legacy the authors do say that they had heard that the parchment had been faked, they give a large treatise as to why they think this may not be correct.

   EXTRACT FROM THE MESSIANIC LEGACY In 1979, when we first met M. Plantard, we were told that both of the ciphered texts were in fact forgeries, concocted in 1956 by the Marquis de Chérisey for a short television programme. We challenged this assertion. The staggering effort required to devise the ciphers seemed inappropriate, indeed ridiculous, for such a purpose. M. Plantard conceded that the forgeries were based very closely on the originals. In other words, they had not been ‘concocted’ by M. Chérisey at all. They had been copied, and M. Chérisey had made only a few additions. When these additions were deleted, what remained were the original texts found by Saunière. But if these two biblical texts were authentic, and if there were three other parchments — two genealogies and the Hautpoul ‘testament’ — that made a total of five. Five separate documents. Whereas Saunière was alleged to have discovered only four. A second, and even more urgent, question was what had become of the parchments. According to one account, they were said to have been ‘purchased by fraud’ and found their way into the hands of the League of Antiquarian Booksellers — or, at any rate, certain individuals, generally identified as ‘Roland Stansmore’ and ‘Sir Thomas Frazer’, posing as representatives of the League of Antiquarian Booksellers. According to another account, they had been plundered from the library of an ecclesiastic in Paris, the Abbé Emile Hoffet,shortly after his death in 1946. They were then said to have found their way into the archives of the Knights of Malta. In our early meetings with him, M. Plantard had confirmed a statement that occurred in a number of specifically Prieuré de Sion sources — that the documents as of then (1979) were in a safe deposit vault of Lloyds International in London. But M. Plantard did not elaborate on how they got there. Finally, in another mysterious addition inserted into Jania Macgillivray’s doctored article, the parchments were said to have been removed from their London depository and placed in a safe deposit box in a Parisian bank, located at 4 Place de Mexico. If this was true, the parchments, as of the latter part of 1979, were back in France. But there was no indication of who had transferred them or why, who had access to them, who had been responsible for the shadowy transactions associated with them. Parchments allegedly deposited here 4 Place de Mexico (picture is my insert) The Notarised Documents During our meeting with him on 17 May 1983, M. Plantard elaborated on two of the paramount questions pertaining to Saunière’s parchments — and, in characteristic fashion, thereby created further mystification. The documents found by Saunière, he said, were indeed only four in number. Three of them were those to which various references had repeatedly alluded – a genealogy dating from 1244 bearing the seal of Blanche de Castille, an Hautpoul genealogy dating from 1644 and the Hautpoul ‘testament’ dating from 1695. The fourth parchment, he said, was the original on the basis of which the Marquis de Chérisey had devised a modified version. According to M. Plantard, there was one coded message on each side of the page. In some way, apparently, the two texts interacted with each other – if, for example, they were held up to the light and viewed, as it were, in superimposition. Indeed, it was suggested that M. Chérisey’s chief ‘modification’ had simply been to reproduce the two sides of the same pages as separate pages, and not to the original scale. This, of course, immediately resurrected a question with which we had occasionally toyed in the past. Could the other three parchments found by Saunière have been important not because of what they said, but because of something else – something about the actual physical sheets on which they were inscribed? What might be on the reverse, for example? A genealogy of the Hautpoul family, even to people familiar with them and their proprietorship of Rennes-le-Château, would hardly seem to warrant all the fuss it had apparently engendered. But what if there were something else on the reverse of the parchment? There is certainly documented evidence about the 1644 Hautpoul genealogy which suggests that it was indeed significant. It is known to have been registered on 23 November 1644, by a man named Captier, notary of the town of Esperaza, not far from Rennes-le-Château. After disappearing for a time, it was found again by Jean-Baptiste Siau, notary of Esperaza, in 1780. For reasons unspecified, he deemed it so important that he refused to return it to the Hautpoul family. He declared it to be a document of ‘great consequence’, which he would not let out of his hands. He offered to travel with it and show it personally to any official authorised to see it, but insisted on returning it afterwards to his strong room. On occasion, the phrase ‘state secret’ has occurred in relation to this document. Some time after 1780, it again disappeared. Or, more likely, the eruption of the French Revolution dictated that it be concealed. There is evidence that subsequent members of the Hautpoul family were aware of its existence and tried to locate it, but they do not appear to have succeeded. M. Plantard refused to comment on either of the Hautpoul parchments, or on the 1244 genealogy bearing the seal of Blanche de Castille. He simply asserted that the fourth parchment found by Saunière consisted of the two coded biblical texts, one on each side of the page. But then, with neither preamble nor warning, he suddenly pulled from his briefcase and placed on the table in front of us two impressively beribboned and be-sealed documents. The text, as we read it, seemed abruptly to lift the whole question of the parchments out of the realm of hypothesis and speculation, and to anchor it in very concrete, very specifically British, territory. The documents M. Plantard showed us, and of which he provided us with photographs, were two officially notarised statements. The first, dated 5 October 1955, was a request to the French Consulate in London, asking authorisation for the export of three parchments — a genealogy dated 1244 bearing the seal of Blanche de Castille, a genealogy dated 1644 for Francois-Pierre d’Hautpoul and the 1695 ‘testament’ of Henri d’Hautpoul. The text began: I, Patrick Francis Jourdan Freeman, Public Notary . . . certify . . . that the signature R.S.Nutting which is found at the bottom of the attached request is truly that of Captain Ronald Stansmore Nutting . . . Mr Freeman also declared that he verified the authenticity of Nutting’s birth certificate, which was said to be attached — although the birth certificate, attached in the photograph was not Captain Nutting’s, but that of a Viscount Frederick Leathers. Leather’s name, at the time, was unknown to us. It seemed clear, however, that Captain Nutting was the person whose name had been garbled to ‘Roland’ or ‘Ronald Stansmore’ in a number of references we had encountered previously. In 1981, for example, the Marquis de Chérisey, in a passage quoted above, had spoken of ‘Captain Ronald Stansmore of the British Intelligence Service’, who, posing as a ‘respectable lawyer’, had purchased Saunière’s parchments allegedly on behalf of the International League of Antiquarian Booksellers. And in the same passage, there had been mention of: . . . the demand for the recognition of Merovingian rights made in 1955 and 1956 by Sir Alexander Aikman, Sir John Montague Brocklebank, Major Hugh Murchison Clowes and nineteen other men in the office of P.F.J. Freeman, Notary by Royal Appointment. The first page in the documents shown us by M. Plantard was headed ‘Request for Authorisation to the Consulate-General of France’. In the ensuing text, three Englishmen were cited; the Right Honourable Viscount Leathers, CH, born 21 November 1883 in London; Major Hugh Murchison Clowes, DSO, born 27 April 1885 in London; and Captain Ronald Stansmore Nutting, OBE, MC, born 3 March 1888 in London. These three gentlemen requested permission from the Consulate-General of France to export from that country: . . . three parchments whose value cannot be calculated, confided to us, for purposes of historical research, by Madame James, resident in France at Montazels (Aude). She came into legal possession of these items by virtue of a legacy from her uncle, the Abbé Saunière, curé of Rennes-le-Château (Aude). There then follows the specific description of the three items in question — the 1244 genealogy, the 1644 genealogy and the ‘testament’ of 1695. After that, the text goes on to state: These genealogies contain proof of the direct descent, through the male line of Sigibert IV, son of Dagobert II, King of Austrasie, through the House of Plantard, Counts of Rhédae, and they are not to be reproduced in any fashion.  The text bears the signatures of Viscount Leathers, Major Clowes and Captain Nutting. At the top of the page is the stamp and seal, dated 25 October 1955, of Olivier de Saint-Germain, the French Consul. In fact, however, all Saint-Germain certifies is that the signature and seal of the notary, P.F.J. Freeman, are correct. M. Plantard also produced further documents, similar to the first but dated a year later. These introduced a new and, in his way, august personality, whose birth certificate was attached. The birth certificate was that of Roundell Cecil Palmer, Earl of Selborne. On the front, Patrick Freeman, notary attached to John Newman and Sons, 27 Clements Lane, Lombard Street, London, confirmed that the signature at the foot of the attached request was indeed that of Lord Selborne, appended in the notary’s own presence. Mr Freeman also confirmed the authenticity and validity of Lord Selborne’s birth certificate. The statement was dated 23 July 1956. Below Mr Freeman’s signature, there were the seal and stamp of the French Consul-General in London, who, now, a year later, was no longer Olivier de Saint-Germain, but one Jean Guiraud. His signature and seal bore the date 29 August 1956. The reverse of this statement was headed ‘Third Original Example’ — implying that there were at least two others. It was sub-headed ‘Request to the Consul-General of France in London for the Retention of French Parchments’. In the text that followed, Lord Selborne, ‘born 15 April, 1887, in London’, declared that, from the office of Patrick Freeman, public notary, he was addressing a request to the Consul-General of France to retain certain French documents. He then proceeded, ‘on my honour’, to specify the documents in question. In accordance with the wishes of Madame James, who had ‘donated’ them, Lord Selborne further affirmed that these documents would, after twenty-five years, legally revert to M. Pierre Plantard, Count of Rhédae and Count of Saint-Clair, born 18 March 1920. Should M. Plantard fail to reclaim them, they would pass to the French National Archives. In the next paragraph, Lord Selborne declared that the documents in question, deposited by Captain Nutting, Major Clowes and Viscount Leathers at the International League of Antiquarian Booksellers, 39 Great Russell Street, London, would be placed ‘on this day’ in a strongbox of Lloyds Bank Europe Limited. No divulgence of them was to be made. At the bottom of the page there was Lord Selborne’s signature. From these two notarised statements a story of sorts can be pieced together. In 1955, Viscount Leathers, Major Clowes and Captain Nutting appear to have obtained three of the four parchments found by Saunière in 1891. The parchments are said to have been obtained from Saunière’s niece, Madame James, then residing in Saunière’s own native village of Montazels, not far from Rennes-le-Château. Permission was sought and presumably procured for these parchments to be exported to England. On 5 October 1955, the three Englishmen were in the office of the notary Patrick Freeman and had their request for export notarised — or, if not the request, something pertaining to the request, if only birth certificates and signatures. In 1956, Lord Selborne sought permission to retain the parchments in England. His request, apparently, was again notarised by Patrick Freeman, on 23 July, and signed by the French Consul-General on 29 August. The parchments, originally deposited with the International League of Antiquarian Booksellers, were then deposited with Lloyds Bank Europe. In twenty-five years — that is, 1980 or 1981 — they were to revert to Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair, or failing his reclamation of them, to the French government. FOR FURTHER READING SEE THE LONDON CONNECTION

   This deals with the genealogy parchments

   But for now we only have this allegation of de Chèrisey's authorship of the Dagobert and Shepherdess parchments from Jean Luc Chaumeil AFTER de Chèrisey's sudden death. This apparant admission by de Cherisey comes from a document which Chaumeil calls 'Stone and Paper'. Chaumeil still refuses to have this Stone and Paper document scrutinised by independent experts.

   

   Whilst this Stone and Paper is de Chèrisey's handwriting it is most likely the paper referred to on page 154 of 'The Key to the Sacred Pattern' written by Henry Lincoln.

   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

   It is indeed clear that it is this document (apparently stolen) that Jean Luc Chaumeil is touting as Philippe de Chèrisey's so-called confession. The author of this website is prepared to defend this allegation should it be necessary assuming that the present owner of the document called Stone and Paper is prepared to offer proof that he is the legitimate owner of the document and also the precedence of this document. i.e. That it genuinely came willingly from Philippe de Cherisey.

1. Pierre Plantard said that Philippe de Cherisey had only made copies of the parchments which Pierre Plantard referred to as de Chèrisey's  'confections'. It was even admitted that de Cherisey altered them and put his own markings on them. Also according to Plantard the originals apparently found by Saunière formed different sides of the same parchment and somehow interacted with each other as parchment tends to be transparent when held up to the light. There are NOT two separate sheets on the originals. Jean Luc Chaumeil showed two separate sheets. These are merely de Chèrisey's COPIES.

2. It is NOT possible that Philippe de Cherisey could have been the original author of the second (shepherdess) text and so as these two pieces of text where on the same sheet then it's highly unlikely he wasn't the author of the Dagobert text either.

Here we have several passages from Philippe de Chèrisey's book CIRCUIT were we find him reaching for an answer.

•  "The presence of Teniers in the message indicates a path to follow from the church of RLC to the church of Saint-Luc, a village further north. This is inferred from two anecdotes concerning the painter, the robe of his procurator, his trade association. Teniers' last painting shows a procurator wearing a black robe. When asked about his health, the ageing Teniers said he had burnt his last tooth to get the ivory black of the robe. In his youth, Teniers held the position of master of St Luke's brotherhood in Antwerp, which gathered all painters.
  Some details in the church play on this:

   
  a/ at the foot of Mary Magdalene, there is a skull with one tooth missing and a cross engraved on top

  
  b/ the procurator of the church is Pontius Pilatus, shown in the first station of the Cross. In Rennes, the procurator washes his hands in the white basin held up by a black boy.

  
  The village of Saint-Luc and its church are at the foot of the Mort mountain as is the cross on the skull at the foot of the Magdalene. Since the first station of the Cross leads to Golgotha, i.e. the mountain of death, we therefore have an itinerary from the church of RLC to the church of Saint-Luc. One could object that this itinerary is contrary to Teniers' biography, who went from youth to old age, along with the procurator when he was admitted to St Luke's brotherhood. In fact, one must travel the path backwards, since Teniers is duke of Antwerp."

Here we have a man clearly reaching for an answer. If he was supposedly the author he would not need to reach.

Here is the proof of Philippe de Chèrisey's innocence of being the author on two points.

Here is the relevant parchment with the extraneous letter highlighted:

The passage shows a passage of Latin written in Greek Uncial style writing. Incidentally this text appeared in the public domain in 1889 this does not mean it was created at that time and a copy of it may have been around in Leiden in 1633.

What is immediately obvious is that this writing carries extraneous lettering not found in the Latin text (these roughly occur every seventh letter but there are exceptions to this rule). The passage depicts  a passage from the gospel of John chapter 12 verses 1 to 11 where it talks about the incident depicted on a stained glass window inside the sacristy of Rennes le Chateau church where Mary Magdalene anoints the feet of Jesus:

Iesus ergo ante sex dies Pashae uenit Bethanam, ubi fuerat Lazarus mortuus, quem suscitauit Iesus.  Fecerunt autemei caenam ibi: et Martha ministrabat, Lazarus uero unus erat ex discumbentibus cum eo. Maria ergo acceptit libram ungenti nardi pistici, pretiosi, et unxit pedes Iesu, et extersit capilillis suis pedes eius : et domus impleta est ex odore ungenti. Dicit ergo unus ex discipulis eius, Iudas Scariotus, qui erat eum traditurus : Quare hoc ungentum non ueniit trecentis denariis, et datum est egenis? Dixit autem hoc, non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum sed quia fur erat, et loculos habens, ea quae mittebantur portabat. Dixit ergo Iesus: Sine illam ut in diem sepulturae meae seruet illud. Pauperes enim semper habetis nobiscum: me autem non semper habetis. Cognouit ergo turba multa ex Iudaeis quia illic est: et uenerunt, non propter Iesum tantum, sed ut Lazarum uiderent, quem suscitauit a mortis. Cogitauerunt autem principes sacerdotum ut et Lazarum interficerent: quia multi propter illum abibant ex Iudaeis, etcredebant in Iesum.

The curious drawing appears on the bottom right of the parchment:

Then

JÉSU . MEDÈLA . VULNÉRUM + SPES . UNA . PŒNITENTIUM

PER . MAGDALÀNÆ . LACRYMAS + PECCATA . NOSTRA . DILUAS

It is also worth noting that this Latin Text at the bottom of the parchment originally appeared below the bas-relief of Mary Magdalene under the altar at Rennes le Chateau which shows her in a cave crying in front of the rugged cross.

This was destroyed by a vandal in 1970 and was never restored.

The untidy mark in the middle of  N Q I Ѕ is almost certainly a crude drawing of this rugged cross depicted in the bas-relief .

On the left is Noel Corbu pictured pre 1970 showing the bas relief of Mary Magdalene underneath the altar and a repetition of the phrase from the bottom of the parchment that was later destroyed by a vandal.

This shows that the author of the parchment was aware of this phrase prior to 1970. Also it shows that as this bas-relief was done by Saunière the parchment in it's present form could not have been made prior to his renovation of the church. Therefore unless this phrase on the parchment was borrowed from a previous display the parchment is unlikely to have been around in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The phrase is bad Latin the phrase:

"Jesus, you remedy against our pains and only hope for our repentance, it is thanks to Magdalene's tears that you wash our sins away."

Is probably the best guess. 

However for this to be correct the Latin should be:

 JESU VULNERUM MEDELA + PAENITENTIUM UNA SPES

MAGDALENAE LACRYMAS + PECCATA NOSTRA DILUAS

Sauniere was an accomplished reader of Latin and it therefore becomes intriguing as to why he should make such a very obvious error right underneath the altar and additionally intriguing as to why the same mistake was made on the parchment.

*****************

To continue with the parchment code 

These extraneous letters found in the text, 140 of them, form a complex code. These letters are depicted below (this is a copy from the book 'The Holy Place' by Henry Lincoln.) This in turn was taken directly from the book written by Gérard de Sède called 'Le Tresor Maudit'.

The first thing of interest is AD GENESARETH in plain text in the middle 12 letters and these are firstly removed. It means 'Towards Galilee'. Interestingly this piece of paper (shown below) was left in a book once owned by the Abbe Bigou, former cure of Rennes le Chateau who is believed by some to be the author of the parchments.

It says:

"......US of Galilee is not here."

This is very old French and the translation may not entirely be correct.

The beginning of .....US is missing and is open to speculation.

You can see the name Bigou on the original page to which this piece of paper is now stuck on the right about two thirds the way down.

 Philippe de Chèrisey does not mention AD GENESARETH in his so-called confession as to why this is included nor indeed does he mention that it is included at all. Curious that he should confess to making the parchment but not explain the meaning of this nor indeed even acknowledge that it is there.

The extraneous letters written in small type are supposed errors made by the author and corrected by Gérard de Sède. It is clear that de Sède did not understand how the code was made but was only given a crude method of decryption by persons unknown. The code does not need to be corrected and the original author did NOT make a mistake. For Gérard de Sède used a 26 letter alphabet (presumably told to do so by Philippe de Chèrisey for his decryption who got it wrong too) whilst the original author had used a 25 letter alphabet for encryption. The French did not adopt a 26 letter alphabet until about 150 years ago indicating the possibility that the original author wrote the code more than 150 years ago.

When the 12 letters in the centre are removed and it leaves 128 letters and these are arranged into two groups of 64 letters. Then the Tableau de Vigenère Code is applied. The method is shown here.

The keyword is MORTEPEE this is taken allegedly from a tombstone of Marie d'Ables d'Hautpoul Countess of Blanchefort. For the record it doesn't matter in the slightest from where this came. MORTEPEE is the word taken from the number of mistakes on the tombstone.

There are four extranious Capital letters that should be there

They spell MORT

there are four small letters two capital and two lower case.

they spell EPee.

Here is how MORTEPEE fits the text

Using the key and the  Tableau de Vigenère the first letter V is therefore cross referenced to the letter M of MORTEPEE and is therefore changed to the letter I and so on.

The result (according to Gérard de Sède that is who apparently got this method direct from Philippe de Chèrisey) is:

    The next stage is to substitute the letter with the letter that follows it in the alphabet so that A becomes B, B becomes C etc  (Z becomes A). This leaves:

The next stage the Tableau de Vigenère Code is applied once again only this time using the entire headstone text as the Key:

To make up the prerequisite 128 letters the phrase PS PRAECUM is added this and this can be found on the other tombstone which contains the phrase ET IN ARCADIA EGO written in Greek lettering:

However something incredible happens here because it has been found that the phrase on the tomb is a direct anagram of the final result with PS PRAECUM removed.

This new key is applied to the Tableau de Vigenère only the tombstone text + PS PRAECUM is this time applied reversed and the result is:

Stage 4 is like stage 2 except the letter is shifted down the alphabet. Gérard de Sède's original 26 letter alphabet version necessitated a two-letter shift at this stage to make it work clearly confirming that these supposed authors of the text didn't know how to decrypt what was apparently their own creation.

The result is as follows:

 The next stage a very clever and elaborate encoding technique is applied. The 128 letters of the text are divided up into two blocks of 8 x 8 squares

This then uses a technique called the 'Knight's Tour' which makes the knight touch each and every square only once taking with it the letter on that square to square it moves to.

So starting on the left at square 22 we have:

f3-e5-d3-c5-e4-c3--d5-e3-c4-d6-c8

a7-b5-a3-b1-d2-f1-h2-g4-h6-g7-e8-c7

a8-b6-a4-b2-d1-f2-h1-g3-h5-f4-e6-d4-c6

e7-g8--e1-g2-f4-h3-g5-h7-f8-d7-b8-a6

b4-a2-c1-d3-c5-e6-d4-c6-e5-c4-d6-e4-f6

Then the second 64 in reverse starting at square 46

f6-e4-d6-c4-e5-c6-d4-e6-c5-d3-c1-a2-b4

a6-b8-d7-f8-h7-g5-h3-f4-g2-e1-c2-a1-b3

a5-b7-d8-fy-h8-g6-h4-f5-e3-d5-c3-e2-g1

f3-h2-g4-h6-g8-e7-c8-a7-b5-a3-b1-d2-f1

g3-h1-f2-d1-b2-a4-b6-a8-c7-e8-g7-h5 

 Yields

BERGERE PAS DE TENTATION QUE POUSSIN TENIERS GARDENT LA CLEF PAX DCLXXXI PAR

LA CROIX ET CE CHEVAL DE DIEU J ACHEVE CE DAEMON DE GARDIEN A MIDI POMMES BLEUES

The reader is reminded that after this incredible process the final result is an anagram of the Hautpoul tombstone plus the phrase PS PRAECUM.

The chances of this occurring by accident are greater than a billion to one.

De Cherisey does allude to this fact in the document held by Jean Luc Chaumeil called Stone and Paper. He says:

De Cherisey does NOT admit he composed it here, indeed he says it is an opinion. How can it be merely an opinion if he was the author?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Another letter touted as Philippe de Chèrisey's so-called confession is this one:

Here de Chèrisey says quite clearly that he is the author of the SOLUTION to the code. i.e. BERGERE PAS DE TENTATION quoted on pages 20.21 of his book. The lawyer agrees that de Chèrisey's SOLUTION shouldn't be used by another author (in this case Gerard de Sède). This in no way represents de Chèrisey admitting to writing the original code. He also curiously says it in English, who is this confession aimed at? Certainly not the lawyer who wrote the letter shown underneath who is clearly a French speaker.

An overemphasis methinks.

Please be aware of this slight of hand used by the detractors.

• New Evidence

  A new piece of evidence has come to light regarding the Hautpoul Tombstone in the form of a document (cover shown right) dating from 1906.

  In 1905 a member of the Société d'études scientifiques de l'Aude' (Scientific Research Society of the Aude), produced in their volume XVII in the year 1906 an account of a visit by Monsieur Elie TISSEYRE to Rennes le Chateau and Rennes les Bains. The visit took place on the 25th June 1905.

  In the document Tisseyre describes in very fine detail his visits to the area and his visit to Saunière's Church and gardens the point of interest here is translated here below.

On the right is a reproduction of Eugene Stüblein's drawing of a tombstone in his book Pierre Gravées du Languedoc. Notice that the drawing has a crack down the middle and Stüblein's signature is in the bottom right hand corner. Notice that the tombstone spells what should be 'd'Ables' - d'Arles and the dimensions are the same as the defaced tombstone currently in the Rennes le Chateau museum. This shows that the Hautpoul tombstone was around in 1905 and as the inscription is a direct anagram of the final 'Bergere pas de tentation........' message. Then it shows that the parchment is unlikely to have been made in the 1960s.  

Summary

1. De Chèrisey was using a 26 letter alphabet when a 25 letter alphabet is the only one that yields the correct decryption.

2. He never explained what he meant by AD GENESARETH.

3. The tombstone (called by de Cherisey - the funerary text) was around in 1905.

Conclusion

Philippe de Chèrisey wasn't the author of the Shepherdess parchment.

The document called Stone and Paper (shown at the beginning of this page) is merely Philippe de Chèrisey's attempt to solve the Shepherdess code.

FOOTNOTE:

JEAN LUC CHAUMEIL HAS RECENTLY RELEASED A BOOK SAYING THAT HE PROMISED PHILIPPE DE CHERISEY THAT HE WOULD TELL THE TRUTH TWENTY FIVE YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH AND THAT THE TRUTH IS THAT PHILIPPE DE CHERISEY MADE UP THE WHOLE THING REGARDING THE PARCHMENTS.

1. THIS IS TYPICAL CHAUMEIL. HOW DID THEY BOTH KNOW THAT CHAUMEIL WAS GOING TO LIVE ANOTHER TWENTY FIVE YEARS?

    

2. THE READER IS REMINDED THAT JEAN LUC CHAUMEIL HAS BEEN CAUGHT OUT IN THE PAST FOR TRYING TO SELL A FAKE DOCUMENT.

    

3. THE TIMING OF THIS HAS MORE TO DO WITH THE SUCCESS OF DAN BROWN'S BOOK - THE DA VINCI CODE - THAN ANY PROMISE MADE TO PHILIPPE DE CHERISEY.