Interview with Paul Karren
For months now rumours have circulated amongst the Rennes Research community that the Dagobert Document - or 'small parchment' - has finally been deciphered. The man said to have accomplished this is an amateur mathematician, hobby cryptologist, and American. In September of 2008 I met Paul Karren in the French village of Esperaza where he introduced me to his research. He made an extraordinary claim. He claimed to have solved categorically once and for all, the ‘solution’ to the smaller parchment. I am always interested in anyone's new research, so I took the time to have a listen.
What he proceeded to tell me was astounding. Meticulous and well researched, his theory absolutely covers all the points raised by the Parchment. Always concise and to the point, as he explained his theories, I soon realised that he was on to something. His findings permit him to link this parchment all the way back to those associated with Saint Sulpice and its founders. It is not so much the 'Parchment' that goes back to the Sulpicians but the ‘key’ that the parchment holds …. And Paul believes that something they held important and dear to their hearts is encoded in this mystery at Rennes. I hope we can look forward to some contributions from Paul in future issues, but for now here is a quick interview to whet your appetite.
Can you explain the name ‘Aprositus Nesos’, a name you occasionally use?
The nom de plum is a bit of joke. In late 2006 I received a series of mysterious emails from a person named ‘Aprositus Mann’ who politely but insistently urged me to publish the findings. I have no idea how ‘A. Mann’ became aware of my work (although I suspect it was through a certain researcher I was then corresponding with.) I thought the name Aprositus clever and adopted the variant ‘Aprositus Nesos’ for all public correspondence from then on.
To understand the significance of the name one must be familiar with Ptolemy’s Geografia. In it, the mythical island of Aprositus Nesos is described as an island that ‘can never be reached nor is visible.’ It seemed apt given my private nature and desire to remain out of the public eye. There are however some trusted researchers who have seen the decipherment that know my identity – you, for example.
Given your desire for anonymity why did you agree to this interview?
I hope to accomplish two goals. First, the time is nearing for a broader audience to see the research results. Before I publish I need additional academics to validate the results. If amongst your readers there are those with expert knowledge in the fields of cryptography, spherical astronomy, and architectural theory who are not put off by the association with the ‘RLC mystery’ then I would love to discuss this matter further with them.
My second goal is my desire to be contacted by authentic modern ‘initiates.’ It seems reasonable that some of these may peruse your journal. In 2006 I made contact with one person that I am satisfied has an authentic connection with the ‘story’ – the evidence offered was extraordinary but not particularly helpful. Surely there are others. There are aspects of the decipherment I would like to discuss with them.
As for myself I do not need (or even desire) public recognition for the decipherment. Nor am I motivated by financial gain.
When and why did you start researching the Rennes-le-Château mystery?
My first introduction to the topic came in 1996 when I ordered a copy of The Tomb of God from a discount mail-order catalogue. I read part of it, dismissed it as dubious, and shelved it mostly unread. I did not know what to think about the story of the priest and the parchments but decided that whatever it was it likely had little to do with Andrews’ and Schellenberger’s central thesis. At that time I was largely unaware of the growing body of Rennes literature and had not read (or even heard of) Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Then in 2004 I was prompted by a friend to read Dan Brown’s book. With all of the hype I was expecting something with a bit of literary sophistication (something along the lines of Foucault’s Pendulum, or The Name of the Rose.) Despite my disappointment I found the central premise of Brown’s book intriguing and vaguely familiar. I padded off to my bookshelves, pulled down my copy of The Tomb of God, and began researching. This time my interest was fully captured.
At first I thought the entire matter was a hoax. I am endlessly fascinated by hoaxes and decided to dissect the story to my satisfaction. What astonished me were the startling scale, sophistication, and intertwined complexity of it all. It seemed well beyond the collective abilities of Plantard and his friends. If they had help, who? And to what possible end? Because there was no apparent way for me to answer these interesting questions I turned my attention to a more accessible mystery: the parchments. I enjoy certain types of puzzles and found them irresistible. I thought I would have a go.
It took about a year to unlock the basic structure of the Dagobert Document and an additional year to work out the connection to Saint Sulpice. It is what I have discovered that has motivated me to continue the research. Now I realize that there are elements of this story that are clearly not hoaxed, the information within the parchments, for example. Something extremely important is going on here.
Can you summarize what the small parchment contains?
Certainly. It is primarily mathematical in nature. There is a geometric component to it, as many have speculated, but it is much more than merely this. I have come to call this device the ‘681 Armature’ because it has unique mathematical properties associated with the number 681. The device primarily describes the solar observatory at Saint Sulpice, the design of the chancel, and certain works of art. It also has a cartographic aspect, but not in the ways imagined by David Wood, Henry Lincoln, and others.
For months now rumours have circulated amongst the Rennes Research community that the Dagobert Document - or 'small parchment' - has finally been deciphered. The man said to have accomplished this is an amateur mathematician, hobby cryptologist, and American. In September of 2008 I met Paul Karren in the French village of Esperaza where he introduced me to his research. He made an extraordinary claim. He claimed to have solved categorically once and for all, the ‘solution’ to the smaller parchment. I am always interested in anyone's new research, so I took the time to have a listen.
What he proceeded to tell me was astounding. Meticulous and well researched, his theory absolutely covers all the points raised by the Parchment. Always concise and to the point, as he explained his theories, I soon realised that he was on to something. His findings permit him to link this parchment all the way back to those associated with Saint Sulpice and its founders. It is not so much the 'Parchment' that goes back to the Sulpicians but the ‘key’ that the parchment holds …. And Paul believes that something they held important and dear to their hearts is encoded in this mystery at Rennes. I hope we can look forward to some contributions from Paul in future issues, but for now here is a quick interview to whet your appetite.
Can you explain the name ‘Aprositus Nesos’, a name you occasionally use?
The nom de plum is a bit of joke. In late 2006 I received a series of mysterious emails from a person named ‘Aprositus Mann’ who politely but insistently urged me to publish the findings. I have no idea how ‘A. Mann’ became aware of my work (although I suspect it was through a certain researcher I was then corresponding with.) I thought the name Aprositus clever and adopted the variant ‘Aprositus Nesos’ for all public correspondence from then on.
To understand the significance of the name one must be familiar with Ptolemy’s Geografia. In it, the mythical island of Aprositus Nesos is described as an island that ‘can never be reached nor is visible.’ It seemed apt given my private nature and desire to remain out of the public eye. There are however some trusted researchers who have seen the decipherment that know my identity – you, for example.
Given your desire for anonymity why did you agree to this interview?
I hope to accomplish two goals. First, the time is nearing for a broader audience to see the research results. Before I publish I need additional academics to validate the results. If amongst your readers there are those with expert knowledge in the fields of cryptography, spherical astronomy, and architectural theory who are not put off by the association with the ‘RLC mystery’ then I would love to discuss this matter further with them.
My second goal is my desire to be contacted by authentic modern ‘initiates.’ It seems reasonable that some of these may peruse your journal. In 2006 I made contact with one person that I am satisfied has an authentic connection with the ‘story’ – the evidence offered was extraordinary but not particularly helpful. Surely there are others. There are aspects of the decipherment I would like to discuss with them.
As for myself I do not need (or even desire) public recognition for the decipherment. Nor am I motivated by financial gain.
When and why did you start researching the Rennes-le-Château mystery?
My first introduction to the topic came in 1996 when I ordered a copy of The Tomb of God from a discount mail-order catalogue. I read part of it, dismissed it as dubious, and shelved it mostly unread. I did not know what to think about the story of the priest and the parchments but decided that whatever it was it likely had little to do with Andrews’ and Schellenberger’s central thesis. At that time I was largely unaware of the growing body of Rennes literature and had not read (or even heard of) Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Then in 2004 I was prompted by a friend to read Dan Brown’s book. With all of the hype I was expecting something with a bit of literary sophistication (something along the lines of Foucault’s Pendulum, or The Name of the Rose.) Despite my disappointment I found the central premise of Brown’s book intriguing and vaguely familiar. I padded off to my bookshelves, pulled down my copy of The Tomb of God, and began researching. This time my interest was fully captured.
At first I thought the entire matter was a hoax. I am endlessly fascinated by hoaxes and decided to dissect the story to my satisfaction. What astonished me were the startling scale, sophistication, and intertwined complexity of it all. It seemed well beyond the collective abilities of Plantard and his friends. If they had help, who? And to what possible end? Because there was no apparent way for me to answer these interesting questions I turned my attention to a more accessible mystery: the parchments. I enjoy certain types of puzzles and found them irresistible. I thought I would have a go.
It took about a year to unlock the basic structure of the Dagobert Document and an additional year to work out the connection to Saint Sulpice. It is what I have discovered that has motivated me to continue the research. Now I realize that there are elements of this story that are clearly not hoaxed, the information within the parchments, for example. Something extremely important is going on here.
Can you summarize what the small parchment contains?
Certainly. It is primarily mathematical in nature. There is a geometric component to it, as many have speculated, but it is much more than merely this. I have come to call this device the ‘681 Armature’ because it has unique mathematical properties associated with the number 681. The device primarily describes the solar observatory at Saint Sulpice, the design of the chancel, and certain works of art. It also has a cartographic aspect, but not in the ways imagined by David Wood, Henry Lincoln, and others.
A still from a computer presentation about the 681 Armature
Sceptics insist the parchments associated with the Rennes-le-Château mystery are simply hoaxes composed by Philippe de Chérisey in the 1960’s. How do you reconcile this with your theory of a hidden 681 Armature in the ‘hoaxed’ Dagobert parchment?
I have not uncovered any new evidence to suggest that the parchments predate the 1960’s. Yet questions of provenance do not change in any way the startling nature of the information the documents contain. That information is demonstrably true and it has apparently remained occulted from public view for nearly four centuries. Perhaps the parchments were created in the 1960s specifically to reveal these secrets. But why in this fashion? This is a great mystery to me.
How do you think de Chérisey (& perhaps Plantard) knew about this 681 armature?
These men were aware of the device. I can say this because they have included hints of its structure in several Dossiers Secrets files. The Armature appears to be connected to an authentic arcane tradition that dates to the early 1640’s. I do not know how these men became privy to the tradition.
Why is the 681 Armature so important? What is its purpose?
This requires a multi-faceted answer.
First, it is a breathtaking example of late Renaissance genius – one entirely unknown to modern academics. I know of no other example in art history where a single mathematical device simultaneously describes expert knowledge in the architecture of a church, its solar observatory, and certain works of art.
It is also important because it has remained secret. This implies a symbolic or practical importance. The question of why it has remained secret leads to your question of its purpose. Many clues suggest that this device also has a cartographic aspect and that this describes the environs of Rennes les Bains. If this is true then whatever was or is hidden there is the primary significance of the Armature. I have only partially worked out the cartographic elements – certain elements remain elusive. Given the secrecy this implies that whatever is hidden is or was important.
Were Andrews and Schellenberger, authors of The Tomb of God, ‘initiates’? For example, Paul Schellenberger discovered a hexagram in the Dagobert parchment (shown on page 41) that has some similarities to the structure of the 681 Armature.
No, I do not believe they were initiates. Andrews and Schellenberger discovered only the most obvious elements of a more complex structure. While generally correct, their hexagram is improperly scaled, cantered, and aligned. If they had worked out how this is accomplished they may have made further progress. Instead, they filled the remainder of their book with irreproducible results and speculations that have nothing to do with the real solution.
What is the Abbè Saunière’s role in this? For example, can we expect to find evidence of the ‘armature’ in the church at Rennes-le-Château?
That we find amongst the priest’s papers pages from Aureum Seculum Redivivum suggests he was aware of the connection. If not, it is an extraordinary coincidence. Also, you are right to ask about evidence of the armature in the church – I have found tentative evidence that he incorporated it into two decorative elements of the church. I need to return again to Rennes le Chateau to confirm these by direct measurement.
I have not uncovered any new evidence to suggest that the parchments predate the 1960’s. Yet questions of provenance do not change in any way the startling nature of the information the documents contain. That information is demonstrably true and it has apparently remained occulted from public view for nearly four centuries. Perhaps the parchments were created in the 1960s specifically to reveal these secrets. But why in this fashion? This is a great mystery to me.
How do you think de Chérisey (& perhaps Plantard) knew about this 681 armature?
These men were aware of the device. I can say this because they have included hints of its structure in several Dossiers Secrets files. The Armature appears to be connected to an authentic arcane tradition that dates to the early 1640’s. I do not know how these men became privy to the tradition.
Why is the 681 Armature so important? What is its purpose?
This requires a multi-faceted answer.
First, it is a breathtaking example of late Renaissance genius – one entirely unknown to modern academics. I know of no other example in art history where a single mathematical device simultaneously describes expert knowledge in the architecture of a church, its solar observatory, and certain works of art.
It is also important because it has remained secret. This implies a symbolic or practical importance. The question of why it has remained secret leads to your question of its purpose. Many clues suggest that this device also has a cartographic aspect and that this describes the environs of Rennes les Bains. If this is true then whatever was or is hidden there is the primary significance of the Armature. I have only partially worked out the cartographic elements – certain elements remain elusive. Given the secrecy this implies that whatever is hidden is or was important.
Were Andrews and Schellenberger, authors of The Tomb of God, ‘initiates’? For example, Paul Schellenberger discovered a hexagram in the Dagobert parchment (shown on page 41) that has some similarities to the structure of the 681 Armature.
No, I do not believe they were initiates. Andrews and Schellenberger discovered only the most obvious elements of a more complex structure. While generally correct, their hexagram is improperly scaled, cantered, and aligned. If they had worked out how this is accomplished they may have made further progress. Instead, they filled the remainder of their book with irreproducible results and speculations that have nothing to do with the real solution.
What is the Abbè Saunière’s role in this? For example, can we expect to find evidence of the ‘armature’ in the church at Rennes-le-Château?
That we find amongst the priest’s papers pages from Aureum Seculum Redivivum suggests he was aware of the connection. If not, it is an extraordinary coincidence. Also, you are right to ask about evidence of the armature in the church – I have found tentative evidence that he incorporated it into two decorative elements of the church. I need to return again to Rennes le Chateau to confirm these by direct measurement.
When the cipher reports that POUSSIN AND TENIERS GUARD THE KEY PAX681, how do you now interpret this in light of your researches? Have you decided how, if at all, your findings fit with the rest of the 'message'?
I can now plausibly account for most (but not all) of the clues taken from the Shepherdess document decipherment. These will be fully explained when I publish.
You claim to have found clear evidence of hexagonal geometry in the two Shepherds of Arcadia paintings by Nicolas Poussin. What is your opinion of other ‘rival’ geometries proposed by fellow researchers?
Andrews and Schellenberger came the closest yet they only discovered the simplest aspect of a much more complex mathematical device. What is hidden within the Dagobert document is (I believe) far more sophisticated and compelling than anything yet published. The geometry is only an entry point into the puzzle – it is the simplest aspect of something much more complex. You have seen it: what is your opinion? Do you find it compelling?
Have you found evidence of the 681 Armature in other works of art by Poussin, or in paintings composed by other artists?
Yes. As you might suspect, it is found in one work by David Teniers the Elder. Less conclusive is its conclusion in Heliodorus Driven from the Temple by Eugene Delacroix.
Have you a theory on the origins of this 681 armature? How far back does it extend in history?
I have my ideas about the origins of the Armature, but that is all. The earliest reference to the device that I have discovered can be found in the 1618 alchemical treatise Aureum Seculum Redivivum (‘Restoration of the Golden Age’) by Heinrich Madathanus. It was this document that provided the essential hint to unlock the mathematical structure of the Armature. The hint is quite simple. In Restoration of the Golden Age Madathanus cryptically describes the ‘Centrum in trigoni centri.’ The Centrum is the 681 Armature. The Centrum predates the church of Saint Sulpice by at least two decades. Therefore, its inclusion in the chancel’s design (and later in technical details of the observatory) suggests the church to be a memorial or homage to the device.
You conclude that the 681 Armature was known by Nicolas Poussin and the Abbé Boudet, among others. If your interpretation is correct, then that must also include members of the ‘Priory of Sion’. Do you have any evidence for how this secret was passed between initiates over many hundreds of years without the knowledge of how to create it being lost?
I am not certain how to address the question about the Priory because I have no clear understanding of what the Priory is. Is the Priory a construct of the 20th century designed to reveal these secrets? Or is it older? I do not know. I rather suspect it is a front for those traditions that have guarded the secret over the centuries. One of these appears to be the Chevaliers Bienfaisants De La Cite-Sainte (Rectifed Scottish Rite Masons.)
I do not know how that secret was passed, only that it was. I can say with certainty that it was known to the architect Christopher Gamard – the man who designed the chancel of Saint Sulpice. The historical connections later re-emerge with the Languet de Gergy when he commissioned the astronomical observatory at Sulpice. A handful of others appear to have had varying degrees of insight into the secrets of the device – the English clockmaker Henry Sully, the astronomer Pierre-Charles Lemonnier, and the artist Eugene Delacroix. The priest Boudet certainly knew and it appears Berenger Sauniere did as well.
Have you found more evidence of the ‘armature’ in other Priory documents?
Yes. It is hinted at in various places in the Dossiers most notably in Pierres Gravees. Once understood, the hints are obvious.
Have you shown any academics your findings?
Yes, but this is enormously problematic and frustrating. Of dozens contacted only three have agreed to review the work and none of these are willing to ‘go on the record’ or have their names associated with the RLC mystery – only to offer guidance.
I can now plausibly account for most (but not all) of the clues taken from the Shepherdess document decipherment. These will be fully explained when I publish.
You claim to have found clear evidence of hexagonal geometry in the two Shepherds of Arcadia paintings by Nicolas Poussin. What is your opinion of other ‘rival’ geometries proposed by fellow researchers?
Andrews and Schellenberger came the closest yet they only discovered the simplest aspect of a much more complex mathematical device. What is hidden within the Dagobert document is (I believe) far more sophisticated and compelling than anything yet published. The geometry is only an entry point into the puzzle – it is the simplest aspect of something much more complex. You have seen it: what is your opinion? Do you find it compelling?
Have you found evidence of the 681 Armature in other works of art by Poussin, or in paintings composed by other artists?
Yes. As you might suspect, it is found in one work by David Teniers the Elder. Less conclusive is its conclusion in Heliodorus Driven from the Temple by Eugene Delacroix.
Have you a theory on the origins of this 681 armature? How far back does it extend in history?
I have my ideas about the origins of the Armature, but that is all. The earliest reference to the device that I have discovered can be found in the 1618 alchemical treatise Aureum Seculum Redivivum (‘Restoration of the Golden Age’) by Heinrich Madathanus. It was this document that provided the essential hint to unlock the mathematical structure of the Armature. The hint is quite simple. In Restoration of the Golden Age Madathanus cryptically describes the ‘Centrum in trigoni centri.’ The Centrum is the 681 Armature. The Centrum predates the church of Saint Sulpice by at least two decades. Therefore, its inclusion in the chancel’s design (and later in technical details of the observatory) suggests the church to be a memorial or homage to the device.
You conclude that the 681 Armature was known by Nicolas Poussin and the Abbé Boudet, among others. If your interpretation is correct, then that must also include members of the ‘Priory of Sion’. Do you have any evidence for how this secret was passed between initiates over many hundreds of years without the knowledge of how to create it being lost?
I am not certain how to address the question about the Priory because I have no clear understanding of what the Priory is. Is the Priory a construct of the 20th century designed to reveal these secrets? Or is it older? I do not know. I rather suspect it is a front for those traditions that have guarded the secret over the centuries. One of these appears to be the Chevaliers Bienfaisants De La Cite-Sainte (Rectifed Scottish Rite Masons.)
I do not know how that secret was passed, only that it was. I can say with certainty that it was known to the architect Christopher Gamard – the man who designed the chancel of Saint Sulpice. The historical connections later re-emerge with the Languet de Gergy when he commissioned the astronomical observatory at Sulpice. A handful of others appear to have had varying degrees of insight into the secrets of the device – the English clockmaker Henry Sully, the astronomer Pierre-Charles Lemonnier, and the artist Eugene Delacroix. The priest Boudet certainly knew and it appears Berenger Sauniere did as well.
Have you found more evidence of the ‘armature’ in other Priory documents?
Yes. It is hinted at in various places in the Dossiers most notably in Pierres Gravees. Once understood, the hints are obvious.
Have you shown any academics your findings?
Yes, but this is enormously problematic and frustrating. Of dozens contacted only three have agreed to review the work and none of these are willing to ‘go on the record’ or have their names associated with the RLC mystery – only to offer guidance.
For an update see HERE
