To
Maynerd Most
Date sent: Fri, 7 May 1999 17:01:33 -0400
This is
the last of the Neyman letters... after this, she wrote and told me
she did not see any point in "discussing" it further as she
KNEW the truth because she had been "led" by "amazing
synchronicities" and all that. Same song, different verse.
My point
is: I can see that there is a HUGE thing going on here... and it seems
that everybody, including yours truly, has had so amazing a series of
"confirmations" of ideas - one leading to another... and work,
work, work on the research and digging and all that... BUT each one
has come to a somewhat different conclusion and has been led down a
somewhat different path.
I want
to get to the very bottom of the blasted thing!
I have
some pieces to this pie, I think... and Martha found some interesting
things... and I am still waiting for my printer to finish your pages
so I can settle down and read and see what pieces you have found...
Anyway,
this will give you SOME idea of how I am looking at it. I am a strange
mixture of "intuitive" and ruthlessly scientific - even toward
myself. And, when I get emotionally attached to my ideas, my husband
straightens me out pretty quick!
I guess
I have a couple of axioms I live by: one is "get results."
The other is: "when all the lies are stripped away, what remains
is the truth."
To
Martha Neyman
Date sent: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:23:49 -0500
On 25
Nov 98, at 16:26, Martha Neyman wrote:
You
are a busy lady... When is the big "Thanksgiving" day..? I
thought this was the 14th of November, but I am not sure and you know
better..!
In USA
it is the last Thursday in November - whatever that happens to be. Don't
know why they picked a Thursday... all sorts of symbolic things about
Thor and all that could come to mind, but...
Sounds
great and fingerlicking good that turkey of yours... Today for us;
a bit sliced cabbage will do, we have to watch our diet...
So do
we... which is why it is going to be difficult... I will be sick if
I eat things that I ought not to eat!
Of
course I will answer the questions you have and I do not see this as
a criticism of the work I did, because I feel, what I did was good and
not done before by anyone... Even not by the writers of the Tomb of
God... The book they wrote, has at first sight a "certain"
resemblance with my work, but it is totally different and the "Horse
of God" is not a rail-way, that is for sure..!
Precisely.
It is such a vast subject, that it is difficult to get into without
writing reams. The very important thing you were doing was just going
about with an open mind and observing and checking things out.
Yes, the
railway part nearly had me laughing off my chair. And those poor guys
missed some of the most amazing clues...
Dear
Laura, do not be angry with me because I am honest to you and straight
to the point... In a way, I am thinking in the same direction as you...
Only way
it can all be solved...
I
think, where you talk about WHY the BBC is "murdering" the
story of RLC, you dig too deep. I can well imagine the US government
keeping the truth about UFO's from the people, but to believe that the
respectable BBC of England is part of a plot to hide the truth of Rennes-le-Chateau
in a sort of double psychology game, I think is going a bit too far.
Possibly.
It is all too easy to get into a conspiracy mind- set. But, you DID
ask the question, and I could see that there was another answer besides
these guys just tossing the whole thing out the window.
You
asked me a lot of questions... But... You started to ask questions
about the "Preface" and the "Introduction".
Yes. There
are certain foundational facts that I think are necessary. You gave
quite a few that I have not noticed in other works... so, I am asking
for more about the "basic story."
Please
take "This" information at "face value"..! This
section is not of any importance to the rest of my book. The information
in the introduction is common knowledge, mostly it came from the locals,
and they are used by every book-writer...
Yes, I
know that - but, I want to know WHY and HOW such things were generated.
I want to know if anybody ever actually documented any of these things.
And these are questions that DO occur to me for whatever reason. If
the only answer is "the locals said so..." well, that IS the
answer. If there is an old diary where someone wrote about it, that
is a different kind of answer.
And, the
point is: somehow, for some reason, stimulated by some "raison,"
these so-called Priory of Sion fellows played on this story and the
painting (which I believe is important because of the facts of Poussin's
life) got connected to this area... Is it because there was some sort
of "rumor" that floated about in esoteric circles that this
painting was connected to this place? Who came up with the idea in the
first place?
When
you start writing some kind of a book, you have to start somewhere...
Oh, indeed.
And getting from point A to point B is very difficult because there
are so many corollary paths that might need to be included that it becomes
an agony deciding how to choose what to include and what to leave out
- or it could become so lengthy and confusing that no one could understand
it! Believe me, I KNOW.
I
do not have to tell you... I did start with general information. So
readers who are not so well informed, but want to know more about the
whole story Rennes-le-Chateau, can get this general information.
Yes, but
you also did some "investigating" on your own. You observed.
A lot of things you mention are not mentioned by other writers, even
apart from your discoveries.
That
is why, in the INTRODUCTION, I wrote: Quote: At the risk of boring
those readers, who know all about the history of Rennes-le-Chateau and
its obstinate priest, I would like to repeat briefly, the "original"
version, for those new to the story... Unquote.
Yes, but
hopefully, you checked some of these things???? After all, the previous
writers may have had an agenda... and it seems that they did not check
things out as thorougly as one might wish.
Dear
Laura, those inverted commas at the word ORIGINAL were placed there
on purpose... To the real initiated it means the story as it is usually
told, as mysterious and uncanny as possible, without actually having
completely checked out, who did what and why and who saw him doing it...
This is just the "common" Rennes-le-Chateau story, only meant
as "proof" that something weird was going on in this village
and that the priest behaved strangely...
Yes, but
if none of those things are true... if they only "developed"
AFTER the fact of the initial "rumor" of treasure was started,
which I think you pinpointed in your description of the folks who were
caring for Marie, well, then there is nothing to support the "treasure"
hypothesis. There is nothing to look for… at least not in that sense.
Thus,
if the story about treasure, the connection to the painting, which seems
to have evolved from the rumors about treasure, all are "manufactured,"
then one has to start looking in a different way.
Because
as you will find out later, as you read on, you will see that Sauniere's
doings have (very) little impact on the solution I found.
But, Sauniiere's
doings seem to be the very thing that the "story" masks...
My point is that the story seems to be a smokescreen for what was going
on with those priests.
I can
see that I am going to have to start telling you about some of the things
I discovered... in much the same way you discovered things... in this
way you will understand that I am saying that there is SOMETHING HUGE
going on here, because what I have discovered dovetails with your "findings"
only there are some other implications and correspondences that make
the picture a lot larger...
I
hope you do not mind, I am so straight to the point..?
No. This
has got to be analyzed to pieces I think.
What
I meant by writing : You are so well informed is: Experienced in symbolism...
We will
get to that later. I cannot formulate without data. There are some significant
symbolic images that are far more ancient and "in your face"
in that painting than what you described. Every thing has multiple layers...
question is: which layer do we extract from?
An example
is your use of the "knee" as a means of selecting the number
"seven." Well, the knee has some very deep meanings and is
used symbolically in a rather different way in numerous sources, the
oldest I have found being the Egyptian Pyramid Texts... And it is not
chance that "knee" is from the same root as "knead (as
in bread), knight, juga, yogi, conjugal, genes, genetic, gonads, etc)
Also,
the hand positions... there was in use, at the time of the painting,
a "hand alphabet" which could signify either letters or numbers
or both ... it could also symbolize a mathematical "operation."
I
started to give an explanation of the perceptible and searching for
the truth in the invisible words of symbolism in "Chapter I"...
So let we start from this first part... And... Do not forget I only
used A SMALL part of the Christian Church symbolism to explain, sometimes
"just enough" to make clear how I came to my conclusions in
a logical way..! Otherwise for most of the people "absolute unknown"
with this material it would have been much too complicated, long-winded
and even boring.
Agreed.
But I am still trying to "connect" the painting to the area
and it is difficult.
So
my dear if you are ready for it... I am... But no hurry, take your
time..!
Well,
it is going to take some time because the "rest of the story"
is yet to be told. And, by that, I mean certain other correspondences
that no one knows, I don't think, but myself.
This
was only a short reply, because I feel the strong desire to write a
whole day on my second book... Which has nothing to do with symbolism...
It is the true story of the "Shepherds" the real "Shepherds":
the church-shepherds..! THAT is the story of the painting of Poussin...
"Popes-Crusades-Templars", it starts with the Oriental Schism
in 1054 ... For the "Latin Church of Rome" this was a large
loss. It ended with a second huge loss: The reformation in 1618.
Well,
if you haven't done so already... look at the King Rene painting reproduced
in the "Tomb of God" book alongside the "Shepherds"
painting... just look at them casually and see what things you note
that correspond... Note the lance and the horse head and compare it
to the "horse head" and shepherd's staff in the Arcadia painting...
Note the position of the sun and the mountain peak in both paintings...
note the posture of the Shepherdess and King Rene... note the ditch
and flow of water exiting from the stone in the two paintings... note
the funny leaning tree in the Rene painting... the funny hand gestures....
Then look
at the Teniers painting and note the shape of the "window"
and compare it to the "chink" in the tomb in the Shepherd's
painting...
Then,
have a look at Bacchus and Ariadne by Titian... half- close your eyes
and see what you can see... note the funny over-turned vessel on the
drapery... the dog... go back to Teniers and note the vessel in the
window... the bird...
In the
Shepherds painting, note the drapery of the figures... the crossed shins,
the bared breasts of the figures... count the numbers of knees, hands
displayed... Note the positions... it is not as simple as the "finger
of Jupiter, Venus or whatever..."
The system
of codes being transmitted via hand signals was widespread in both the
Orient and the Occident. There are allusions to it in the writings of
several Greek and Latin writers, such as Plutarch, who attributes these
words to orontes, son-in-law of King Artaxerxes of Persia: "Just
as in calculating, fingers sometimes have a value of ten thousand and
sometimes of only one, the favorites of kings may be either everything
or almost nothing." (Hmm... a connection to Persia again?)
Apuleius
married a rich widow named Aemilia Pudentialla and was accused of having
used magic to win her favor. He defended himself before Proconsul Claudius
Maximus in the presence of Emilianus, his main accuser, who had unkindly
said that Aemilia was sixty years old, when she was actually only forty.
Here is the record of how Apuleius addressed his accuser:
"How
dare you, Emilianus, increase the real number of Aemilia Pudentilla's
age by half, or even a third? If you had said 'thirty' for 'ten' it
might have been thought that your mistake CAME FROM HOLDING YOUR FINGERS
OPEN WHEN YOU SHOULD HAVE HELD THEM CURVED. But, forty is THE EASIEST
NUMBER TO INDICATE, SINCE IT IS EXPRESSED WITH THE HAND OPEN."
Saint
Jerome wrote:
"Thirty
corresponds to marriage, FOR THE CONJUNCTION OF THE FINGERS AS THOUGH
IN A SWEET KISS REPRESENTS THE HUSBAND AND THE WIFE. [...] AND THE
GESTURE FOR A HUNDRED, TRANSFERRED FROM THE LEFT HAND TO THE RIGHT,
ON THE SAME FINGERS, EXPRESSES ON THE RIGHT HAND THE CROWN OF VIRGINITY."
The Venerable
Bede gives many examples of how the system can be used for silent communication.
In Islamic
religions, finger counting and signing was used extensively (remember
the "contamination" of the Templars by Sufism... which is
so similar to what is known of the Cathars that one cannot help but
think that there is a connection... and, also, what is known of the
Druids...)
There
are a LOT of quotes I can cite about this "finger and hand"
signalling system... but, it would get tedious.
The meanings
of these things were obvious to people of the time, (which may be why
the painting was hidden), and the citations from old MSS so common that
it shows that such allusiions were used both in paintings and in written
references... otherwise, the readers could not have been expected to
understand them, but it is very obscure to those of us in the 20th century
who are not familiar with the method, and casually pass over such references
as being "unimportant."
Thus,
this may be an important consideration in evaluating the message of
this and other paintings.
The mathematical
angles are another thing altogether. At the time, the "Golden Mean"
was a standard of Art... it was taught in all the art schools that a
composition based on this ratio was more aesthetically pleasing... so,
pupils were taught, and masters perfected, the art of compositional
placement on the medium according to the Pythagorean principles. It
meant, essentially, nothing. It can be found in thousands of paintings.
It's presence in art is generally meaningless.
However,
your finding of the stone with the ratio figure engraved upon it ...
well, that requires some examination, but not necessarily in the precise
terms. Or, on the other hand, in the precise terms...
Well,
I have some transcribing to do for my husband who is impatiently pacing
about - and I have baking to do this afternoon. Children won't let me
NOT do it!
It will
take a while to talk about all of these things and I am going to begin
to try to describe to you some of the other things that may be significantly
related...
Laura
