That Philippe de Cherisey made up the parchments.
A more detailed treatise on this can be found
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 explained what he meant by AD GENESARETH. (The middle twelve
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 supposedly 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 Luc 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."
"I delivered the fruits of my labours to Gerard de Sède."
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)
"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
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?