Previously I had posted a thread in ATS (back in 2003) entitled The Underground Stream. In this thread I spoke of something I found in the five years
of research I did into the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery. However, I have never spoken publically about what it was I found. I would now like to do so.
Since I backed out of talking about it on that thread and removed a lot of posts and junked the thread up, I'm starting a new one.
In August 2000 I wrote an email to Graham Hancock concerning what I had noticed during my research. I did so because I greatly respect him as both a
writer and a researcher. I felt that if anyone could open-mindedly look into this, and do it in-depth, it would be him. Unfortunately, at the time I
sent this, Mr. Hancock was on a trip, and his research assistant responded asking me to post it on their public message board so that his readers
could respond, and then he could when he returned. I was not ready to discuss it in public.
Here is the content of that email (to save me re-typing what I've already explained):
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 3:51 PM
Subject: A Point of Confusion
Dear Mr. Hancock,
I have read all your books except the newest...you have slipped one by
me. I had not heard of "Heaven's Mirror". I shall promptly remedy
this situation. I would like to tell you how very much I enjoy your
books, but since I am not the writer you are...words escape me. Being
an engineer, I appreciate your investigative methods, your wonderful
conveyance of information, and your ability to maintain a good grasp
on the "big picture" while adding in the important details. I would
like to add that I agree with your theory concerning the Great Cycle
that this world of ours...and remnants of each passing civilization
[that] have gone through.
One of my other areas of interest is the study of the Templars and
Rennes-le-Chateau. I have read many books on this subject. Let me
clarify that all of these books are "recent", being written in the
past 20 to 30 years. Though each of these books has important insights
into the mysteries surrounding this particular area of France, and the
certain "secrets" that may still be concealed, the writers of each of
these books falls far short of your ability to maintain that "big
picture" view. Bluntly stated, they each tend to suffer from tunnel
vision toward what ever "slant" they want to impart to the situation.
I am hoping that you are continuing to investigate the areas (i.e.
Templars, what knowledge they may have become privy to, and how this
knowledge could affect humanity) opened in your investigation connected with "The Sign and the Seal".
I have noticed a particular detail which, in the mounting volumes of
pages written on the above subjects, has had not a single word printed
on its existence (to my knowledge). I would like to share it with
In Poussin's "Les Bergers d'Arcadie", a painting which has innumerable
words dedicated to the various analyses of it, there is an obvious
"clue?" which has never been spoken of (again, as far as I know). The
young man in the foreground of the painting is pointing toward two
1.) the sarcophagus which, of course, has been dealt with in depth in
various books, and 2.) a shadow on the side of the sarcophagus. It is
this non-physical second entity that has never been discussed. And it
is the lack of discussion of this object (which basically resides at
the focal-point of the painting) that confuses me so.
In researching various books that deal with this painting I have
learned that Poussin not only was an extremely talented and adept
painter, but that he was also a perfectionist; going so far as to wait
until a painting had reached a specific "tackiness" at which time he
would painstakingly press, with his thumb, each area of the painting in
order to remove the brush-strokes. I have studied several of
Poussin's other works and have found him to be, in my lay-opinion, an
extremely talented realist; showing great knowledge of anatomy,
lighting, and geometry. However, the shadow cast on the side of the
sarcophagus in Les Bergers absolutely cannot be the shadow of the young
man pointing at it. Upon studying the shadow it is found that not only
is it not correct for this young man's pose, but it is almost a
cartoonish caricature compared to the rest of the painting. And
furthermore (adding in nothing more than my own opinion), this shadow
has a malevolent feel about it. In other words, to me, it looks a bit
demonic (to be quite blunt, it reminds me a bit of the demonic statue on
which the holy water receptacle is mounted at the Rennes-le-Chateau
Now, I refuse to become "tunneled" on this point as others have on
their points, BUT I believe that this detail is important in the big
picture. And it's lack of mention concerns me in the following way:
Instead of the viewer being directed solely to the sarcophagus, isn't
this young man directing the viewer to both the sarcophagus, and a hint
at some malevolence involved with any secret attached to it; or maybe
even to the source of the secret attached to it?
I can only guess at how busy you must constantly be, so I humbly offer
a thank you for the time you have invested in this email. I feel
better knowing that I have now shared with someone something I noticed
about five years ago, and still haven't seen a word printed about.
And I feel good that the person I shared it with was you.
Best wishes in your endeavors, and I look forward to reading more of
your wonderful works.
Okay, so that covers what I found.
Here is a site with a half-way decent copy of "Les Bergers d'Arcadie" by Poussin. But I encourage you to get hold of a hardcopy reprint if you
would like to really analyze this pic. I also encourage you to research the painting techniques employed by Poussin, and to review as many of his
works in comparison to this one as you possibly can. Because I think once you have done that, you will start to see my point.
I look forward to hearing your opinions on this - pro or con.
[edit on 5-26-2005 by Valhall]