(Q - Nabil: My problem, Michel, is that I asked this question because I, on the ground, at the BSM, I see a 4 and not a 2. And if you
say that there are only the numbers in the visual to use, there is the 4 in the trash and I will focus on the 2 and that will allow me to…)
MB: I got to know a number of famous rocks, the mother-in-law's and others, the dog's ass, etc. I know a lot of them. The sentinels, the Saint-Martin terminal, the, the Saint-Martin terminal(s). I also got to know in detail what information I was able to compile and I was keen to do so. It appears today very clear and irrefutable that the number to be taken into account on one of the engraved stones is not 1727, but 1747. This is ratified by the historic monuments services, etc. All that we find today in terms of information on this, apparently, is 1747.
So, I see a certain number of elements appearing in the solutions which take into account either a doubt or 1727. I think that today, it would be prudent to base ourselves on 1747. For those who are on this , in my opinion, there are not many questions to ask. And let's say that I don't want there to be controversies on this point, because it doesn't really seem interesting to me.
(Q - Nabil: If I take the figures on the visual, I do not take this engraving into account.)
MB: No, at all. No, no, I was responding to the previous intervention which told me about the Saint-Martin terminals, I see other figures. So the figures, I cannot answer, so I will be very clear Nabil, now we end with that, I cannot answer by saying these are the only figures to take into account, I am just saying that these are absolutely to be taken into account in a certain way, it must be used. Afterwards, you have to be able to place them in a certain perspective on the ground.
MB: I got to know a number of famous rocks, the mother-in-law's and others, the dog's ass, etc. I know a lot of them. The sentinels, the Saint-Martin terminal, the, the Saint-Martin terminal(s). I also got to know in detail what information I was able to compile and I was keen to do so. It appears today very clear and irrefutable that the number to be taken into account on one of the engraved stones is not 1727, but 1747. This is ratified by the historic monuments services, etc. All that we find today in terms of information on this, apparently, is 1747.
So, I see a certain number of elements appearing in the solutions which take into account either a doubt or 1727. I think that today, it would be prudent to base ourselves on 1747. For those who are on this , in my opinion, there are not many questions to ask. And let's say that I don't want there to be controversies on this point, because it doesn't really seem interesting to me.
(Q - Nabil: If I take the figures on the visual, I do not take this engraving into account.)
MB: No, at all. No, no, I was responding to the previous intervention which told me about the Saint-Martin terminals, I see other figures. So the figures, I cannot answer, so I will be very clear Nabil, now we end with that, I cannot answer by saying these are the only figures to take into account, I am just saying that these are absolutely to be taken into account in a certain way, it must be used. Afterwards, you have to be able to place them in a certain perspective on the ground.