Talk:Philippe de Chérisey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
I removed the following note from the beginning of this article:
LOL - WHAT TRIPE - AND WHAT VANDALISM FROM THE NUTCASES ON WIKIPEDIA!
The "parchments" DID NOT show the "survival of the Merovingians" - that was done in the Priory Documents! And there are more than 15 of these documents - and the documents are quite different to the "parchments".
Cherisey was a fraudster as he himself admitted in several accounts - including in the Priory Documents and in the unpublished 44 page document "Stone and Paper"
Loads of ignorant rubbish from those here about de Cherisey who have obviously not read the Priory Documents and whose knowledge is limited to what is written in cranky and rubbishy English Language books!!!!
Ganymead 22:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Phillipe de Cherisey could not have concocted the second (Shepherdess) parchment as he did not know how to encode it correctly. The correct code requires a 25 letter alphabet for correct decryption. The Stone and Paper document uses a 26 letter alphabet. This document is merely De Cherisey's attempts to decode the parchment with a false signature appended.
When Plantard told Lincoln that de Cherisey had 'fabricated' 'A' document he meant that he had merely copied them from originals. This is explained in The Messianic Legacy. De Cherisey admitted he was a 'Prankster' not a fraudster, a subtle difference. At no point, other than a dubious signature on a document that is unavailable for close independent scrutiny, has de Cherisey admitted that he fabricated the whole thing as a hoax.
But, even if he did concoct the Parchments: So what? Surely if the parchemnts can be proven to have meaning then it doesn't matter if they were only written yesterday.
Eric Tull 13:26, 06 March 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the following allegations from the article because they were either wrong or there was no valid evidence:
- Philippe de Cherisey did not understand Latin, this comes from people who knew him personally during his lifetime.
- Only one of the parchments has the text of the Codex Bezae, not both of them
- The break-up between Philippe de Cherisey and Pierre Plantard had nothing at all to do with "holding a meeting to decide on the new Priory of Sion Grand Master" - but specifically to do with Philippe de Cherisey working with Paul Rouelle against the wishes of Pierre Plantard. This was during the mid-1980s - a long time after the event relating to Plantard holding a meeting to decide on the new Priory of Sion Grand Master.
wfgh66 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
