The model

 

Since “Saunière’s model” went on display during the summer of 1995 in the Villa Bethania, interest in the model has grown exponentially. But throughout its public life, the model has also received a mixture of criticism and probing questions. For the critics, the model is often classified as a fraud – perpetrated, it seems, but the man who brought the model into the open – André Douzet.
There are several reasons for this criticism; some of it stems from a disbelief, often coupled with a lack of asking questions. Other criticism comes from people with an agenda – to which we will return later.

Octonovo’s critique of the model is nothing new. If anything, it is a synthesis of existing criticism, some of which has been addressed, some of which he would have received a reply for, if he had asked these questions.

Octonovo is not the real name of the author: that is Laurent Buchholtzer. It is important that real names are aired, for it is a common theme that criticism is easier and more often aired by those hiding behind a pseudonym. By removing this imaginary boundary, we can address our critic as a real person, rather than an imaginary construct of his own making.
After Mr. Buccholtzer informed us of the appearance of the article on his site (which was consequently published on the site of Mr. Marlin, and then translated by “M.W.”, which we assume is Marcus Williamson), he then confirmed that the article was based on the work of Patrick Mensior, rather than his own work. The article in essence was Buchholtzer’s agreement with Mensior’s observations on the model. At the same time, Buchholtzer stated he was solely responsible for the text. He had “little fear” about what he had written, as to him it seems verifiably based on the notebooks. Buchholtzer has a part of Saunière’s notebooks, in which Saunière kept an account of his spendings. Buchholtzer considers these notebooks to be all-encompassing, i.e. every transaction that Saunière made was recorded. However, in The Secret Vault, it is shown that this is not the case; known expenses from Saunière are nevertheless not listed in these notebooks. Antoine Captier and others have so far identified at least 83 items that are missing.

Indeed, one criticism against the authenticity of the model – and the ownership of Saunière of it – is that it does not feature in the notebooks. This is true, but the argument itself is without foundation. No invoice for the model was ever made; the model maker learned that Saunière had died before the completion of the work and the related documents were stamped as “deceased”. Even if the model maker would produce an invoice, it would never have featured in the accounts – Saunière had died and the invoice, if it ever would be paid, would have been paid by Marie Denarnaud. But, all this aside, the fact of the controversy is simple: no invoice, hence no listing in the notebooks. Any attempt to state that the absence of an entry in the notebook is proof that the model is not authentic and does not belong to Saunière is disingenuous at best.

Buchholtzer states that Mr. Douzet’s work on Rennes-le-Château largely depends on this model. This is an amazing statement to make. First of all, Mr. Douzet’s research on Rennes-le-Château, on its cisterns, the presbytery, etc. has nothing to do with the model. Secondly, the model is a component in the “mystery” of Perillos – though that village’s intrigue is able to stand without the model itself. Even the location of two tombs on its grounds stands without this model; Saunière’s model only addition to this is that it did allow Mr. Douzet to discover the locations of these tombs – but the discovery of the tombs does not mean they did not exist without being discovered. What the model shows is that Saunière was aware of these two tombs, and for some reason, encoded their location and the surrounding landscape into his model.
Still, why Mr. Buchholtzer would argue that largely Mr. Douzet’s research falls or stands with this model, while not only erroneous, actually seems to be an attempt to do a character assassination, whereby the model is used as the noose to strangle the man who brought it in the open.

Mr. Buchholtzer claims that André Douzet presented the model, back in 1995, as a “treasure map of Rennes-le-Château”. As Mr. Buchholtzer claims to have had only a recent interest in the model, based on his involvement with the notebooks, it seems that he is relying on other people’s memory of events dating back to August 1995. All André Douzet wants to add is that he never described the model as a “treasure map” back then.

The next accusation is that several people have called Mr. Douzet a falsifier. Mr. Buchholtzer lists Boumendil, Tappa and Feral. He states that meetings were planned where they would be able to see certain material, but that Mr. Douzet never showed up and that he apparently did not think it opportune to organise a new meeting, to discuss the accusations made against him.
There is no denying that such accusations have been made. But it is another to state that no meetings have occurred where the evidence was produced. In just the last year, there have been meetings in Paris, Opoul and even Amsterdam where the evidence was displayed. Two of these meetings, Paris and Amsterdam, were filmed, from beginning to end. In Paris, specific evidence was brought along, as Mr. Mensior was said to be in the audience. In the end, if he was, he never asked any questions. As to Mr. Alain Feral: we have met with him several times since 1995, including the meeting for Pentecost in 2004 (a report of which can be found on our French website, clearly showing a photograph of his presence in a small group of people). If Mr. Feral ever labelled Mr. Douzet a “faker”, then it is clearly an old and outdated accusation. It either shows that Mr. Buchholtzer is using outdated material, or is intentionally using material past its sell-by date. And if the latter, for what reason?

This leads to the conclusion of Mensior, which argues that the model was never Saunière’s. Mensior has never seen the documents closely. He has had every chance to do this; apart from the public engagements in which the documents are put on display, various other individuals have seen the documents in other meetings, or private meetings, some at Mr. Douzet’s home. There are hundreds of people who have come close to these documents; Mensior is not one of them. He cannot be labelled an expert and referring to Mensior as the expert, as Mr. Buchholtzer does, is just a travesty. For sure, Mensior has said many things about the model; so what? A man who claims to be the expert on a subject but has actually spent less time and effort in researching the subject than hundreds of other people have… is only an expert in his own eyes.

“To this day, Mr. Douzet has never produced the requested documents, capable of eliminating all serious doubt which hangs over the sincerity of his researches” concludes Mr. Buchholtzer .
It is true that certain documents have not been shown. But there is a difference between showing everything and showing enough to show that something is genuine. Does a da Vinci expert have to make a comparison between all Leonardo paintings and a newly discovered one to verify whether or not a recent discovery is a genuine Leonardo or not? The answer is no. As such, we have shown a certain amount of documents, which show that the documents are Saunière’s. As recently as March 2005, we have informed Mr. Antoine Captier that he also would be invited to do this comparison, if he so desired.
As for the documents that have been withheld, we have actually given the reason why they have been withheld. They contain specific details, which would allow other researchers to quite easily locate the location of the two tombs, as well as other aspects related to this. But perhaps Mr. Buchholtzer is precisely creating this controversy to see whether or not Mr. Douzet is going to reveal these documents? Does he perhaps think that this character assassination will lead Mr. Douzet to publicly show the location the model describes? Public disclosure is not the sole discretion of Mr. Douzet, or the Société Perillos, but involves the authorities, beginning with the mayor of Opoul-Perillos and ascending from there.

Mr. Buchholtzer then continues with a series of statements, including: “there is not a single invoice for the optical or measuring instruments as those described by Mr. Douzet which Saunière would have needed for the realisation of this topographical model.” André Douzet challenges Mr. Buchholtzer to show where he ever made the above statement that Saunière ordered – and paid for – such equipment. Such a statement only exists in the imagination of Mr. Buchholtzer; using such assertions against Mr. Douzet is either sloppy research or – we return to the possibility – part of a character assassination.
He then continues to argue that “there does not exist a single invoice” for items rent in Lyon, specifically in the rue de Maccabées. Well, these invoices do exist, and they have been published. And if the published ones do not suffice, there are other ones, not yet published – two of which are invoices for his room rent.

It gets worse: “There does not exist a single trace of an invoice for the trip to Lyon, Durban des Corbières or Perillos.” Right; did any normal user of public transport ever get an invoice from that service? Millions of people all over the world surely will demand an invoice from now on when being asked to pay for a trip on the metro or bus service. Such trips would never have invoices and the notion that Mr. Buchholtzer entertains that such trips would be accompanied by invoices is ridiculous at best, surreal at worst.
It gets worse – if possible – when it comes to Perillos: there never was public transport to Perillos; who would he have paid? Saunière’s trips to Durban-Corbières and Perillos were “private”, in the sense that he had to make his way there himself. The evidence that he visited these places, such as Durban-Corbières, is proven by people – a few still alive – who remember him there, and others, now dead, who said he was there. For some, he was a friend of the family, making occasional visits; at that time, being on friendly terms with a priest and have him come over for meals, was a memorable event. But assuming this would leave any evidence in his financial accounts?
Also, Mr. Buchholtzer claims that the accounts do not show these trips. Does he therefore argue that all other trips – every single trip Saunière ever made – is accounted for in the notebooks? If so, we would like to see that report…

In conclusion, it is clear that Mr. Buchholtzer’s analysis leaves certain things wanting. Anyone who feels positively disposed towards treating these documents as the final say on the matter, is clearly in need of a reality check; those who seem to believe that Mr. Buchholtzer’s analysis adds anything to the debate, are lacking any real understanding of the debate.
But specifically, we need to ask the question time and again whether or not this is not part of a character assassination. And that is perhaps something that the authors of this rebuttal need to develop further… this may not lead to a true understanding of Saunière’s model, but it will lead to a truthful understanding of what has happened in the past five years regarding the controversy of the model and its three owners since 1999.

André Douzet & Filip Coppens