Arcadia Discussion Zone

Really? Why didn't you post them here? Or are you now working on taking one liners out of context on that too? Now let me recall that "vendetta" to McGowan carried on at this forum..who all was posting about her? Was I standing here ranting all alone? I recall many people came here to rant about what McGowan had done to them or to others...I didn't have much to contribute compared to their experiences with her..and how much of that did you contribute? Others may remember better than I do..but quite a lot as I recall..

Oh I see that other comment about 'scathing'... YOu said that I made scathing remarks about Andrew to you and David...Now let's drag David into this and see what emails he has about these 'scathing' remarks....because I remember always being in contact with Andrew and it was always cordial...in fact after leaving you on this forum...our relationship IMPROVED.

I was referring to messages I received from YOU about Andrew. And I'd be happy to show them to him if he's interested.



First your grandmother was from Finland, then she was from Japan, now she's from Kashmir. I know your stories change frequently, Sue, but not that rapidly!



I just reply to you, so that's your call.

TCP

Ahhh That's just your tired brain malfunctioning....and How many grandmothers do I have from here back to Kashmir?
Read the book. It's all in there...

I would show them to Andrew first.



Lots of people had comments to make, you were the only one claiming she'd stolen from you though, making you the only legal liability.



But he still deleted you.

TCP

DEFINITION OF STALKING
Having been used since at least the 16th century to refer to a prowler or a poacher (Oxford English Dictionary), the term stalker started to be used by the media in the 20th century to describe people who pester and harass others, initially with specific reference to the harassment of celebrities by strangers who were described as being "obsessed".

Pathé and Mullen describe stalking as "a constellation of behaviors in which an individual inflicts upon another repeated unwanted intrusions and communications".

Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time. Although stalking is illegal, some of the actions that can contribute to stalking are initially legal, such as gathering information, calling someone on the phone, sending gifts, emailing or instant messaging. They become illegal when they breach the legal definition of harassment e.g. an action such as sending a text is not usually illegal, but is illegal when frequently repeated to an unwilling recipient. In fact United Kingdom law states the incident only has to happen twice when the stalker should be aware their behavior is unacceptable e.g. two phone calls to a stranger, two gifts following the victim then phoning them etc. However, the victim may feel they have been the victim of a stalking after one incident e.g. being followed home.

Types of stalkers

Psychologists often group individuals who stalk into two categories: psychotic and nonpsychotic.[14] Stalkers may have pre-existing psychotic disorders such as delusional disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophrenia. Most stalkers are nonpsychotic and may exhibit disorders or neuroses such as major depression, adjustment disorder, or substance dependence, as well as a variety of Axis II personality disorders (such as antisocial, borderline, dependent, narcissistic, or paranoid). Some of the symptoms of "obsessing" over a person is part of obsessive compulsive personality disorder. The nonpsychotic stalkers' pursuit of victims can be influenced by various psychological factors, including anger, hostility, projection of blame, obsession, dependency, minimization, denial, and jealousy. Conversely, as is more commonly the case, the stalker has no antipathic feelings towards the victim, but simply a longing that cannot be fulfilled due to deficiencies either in their personality or their society's norms.

In "A Study of Stalkers" Mullen et al.. (2000) identified five types of stalkers:

Rejected stalkers pursue their victims in order to reverse, correct, or avenge a rejection (e.g. divorce, separation, termination).
Resentful stalkers pursue a vendetta because of a sense of grievance against the victims – motivated mainly by the desire to frighten and distress the victim.
Intimacy seekers seek to establish an intimate, loving relationship with their victim. To many of them the victim is a long-sought-after soul mate, and they were 'meant' to be together.
Incompetent suitors, despite poor social or courting skills, have a fixation, or in some cases, a sense of entitlement to an intimate relationship with those who have attracted their amorous interest. Their victims are most often already in a dating relationship with someone else.
Predatory stalkers spy on the victim in order to prepare and plan an attack – often sexual – on the victim.

The 2002 National Victim Association Academy defines an additional form of stalking: The vengeance/terrorist stalker. Both the vengeance stalker and terrorist stalker (the latter sometimes called the political stalker) do not, in contrast with some of the aforementioned types of stalkers, seek a personal relationship with their victims but rather force them to emit a certain response favorable to the stalker. While the vengeance stalker's motive is "to get even" with the other person whom he/she perceives has done some wrong to them (e.g., an employee who believes is fired without justification from their job by their superior), the political stalker intends to accomplish a political agenda, also using threats and intimidation to force his/her target to refrain and/or become involved in some particular activity, regardless of the victim’s consent.

Many stalkers[quantify] fit categories with paranoia disorders. Intimacy-seeking stalkers often have delusional disorders involving erotomanic delusions. With rejected stalkers, the continual clinging to a relationship of an inadequate or dependent person couples with the entitlement of the narcissistic personality, and the persistent jealousy of the paranoid personality. In contrast, resentful stalkers demonstrate an almost “pure culture of persecution,” with delusional disorders of the paranoid type, paranoid personalities, and paranoid schizophrenia.

One of the uncertainties in understanding the origins of stalking is that the concept is now widely understood in terms of specific behaviors which are found to be offensive and/or illegal. As discussed above, these specific (apparently stalking) behaviors may have multiple motivations.

In addition, the personality characteristics that are often discussed as antecedent to stalking may also produce behavior that is not stalking as conventionally defined. Some research suggests there is a spectrum of what might be called "obsessed following behavior." People who complain obsessively and for years, about a perceived wrong or wrong-doer, when no one else can perceive the injury—and people who cannot or will not "let go" of a person or a place or an idea—comprise a wider group of persons that may be problematic in ways that seem similar to stalking.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

What eludes you still is that just because significant pools of a particular haplogroup can be found today in multiple geographic regions over a large area doesn't mean the whole tribe went from place to place en masse during the age of migration.

TCP

Sue, you participate on a public forum and you engage me in conversation by your replies. That isn't stalking.

TCP

You still don't get it....

What you have been doing all these years constitutes stalking by legal definition, Tim. I even joked a while back that maybe you had a "crush" on me because you were so persistent in following me around and demanding conversations...I apologized to everyone on this forum for the disruptions you were causing to every thread of conversation I was on...now I realize what the real problem is! And frankly you scare me.

I am not replying to your demands so much as defending myself against your accusations.....now tell us more about those 20 million dollar lawsuits..and my scathing remarks about Andrew and McGowan....and why you enter threads and bring these topics up addressed your comments only to me....demanding that I answer no matter how ridiculous or repetitive your questions always are..regardless what the forum topic is...then carefully re-read the definition of stalking..and harassing...and by your own admission, this has been going on for years !

That pretty accurately describes YOU, Sue. You peddled your story on the old PoS List, I think you were on the old Da Vinci Code List as well, then you came here, got kicked off, and now you're back peddling the same story and ranting about perceived wrongs. I've been here the whole time, not giving you a second thought until you showed up to pick right back up where you left off three years ago. Sounds like you're the one who can't "let go."

TCP

Yeah, I do. Your grandmother's early paleolithic/neolithic ancestors migrated to what is today Finland. Others of the same Haplotype wound up in the far east, still others in southern Asia. Just because one has a particular haplotype doesn't make them an honorary citizen of every nation or tribe that carries the same genetic code.

TCP

Not true Tim....not true at all...yOU DEMANDED THOSE DISCUSSIONS AAND i ANSWERED YOU CALMLY AND TRUTHFULLY EVERY TIME,.......BUT THAT WAS NEVER ENOUGH AND YOU JUST KEPT AT IT AND ARE STILL DOING IT RIGHT HERE AND NOW... You have started these threads of conversation...demanding answers ...I tried making peace with you several times...Now..... you Let Go!

Whatever it is troubling you about me, whether real or imaginary, .....let go.....end of the problem.

Yeah, it's true Sue. You just keep coming back demanding attention but you don't like the attention you get. You have the power to stop it, you can just stop.

TCP

Me demanding attention? Naw... I dont think anyone here would agree with you Tim...You have always approached me and demanded the attention in the form of answers to your demanding accusations...which have nothing to do with nothing else going on here.. Cute the way you take my words and turn them back....not much in the way of original thinking though....You should get some sleep...You have to work in a few hours...dream about those 20 million dollar frivolous lawsuits....

As Sheila commented, recently, in another context.............



TD

Thank you Thomas. I also didn't 'actively support' Ben in his 'messages in bottles' scam. They happened shortly before our marriage break-up and we were not actually speaking at the time. I found evidence of them while he was in France burying them. When he got back he told me that he had found the bottles but failed to mention that he had actually written and planted them!

And Ike, I'm sorry if you don't like it but, as I said before, by the time I joined this forum I had other stuff going on and it would not have been an appropriate time for me to mention these bogus messages. I did assume after Hammott confessed all to me in 2010 that he would be doing the same with Team Hammott!

VAM

Blinkey blimey, a lot happens overnight doesn't it?

I'm not sure the 'quoting' is correct above - so if not the original is on page 32 of this thread - I think the quote 'shasta' bit at the top of the page is part shasta and part tcp.

I'm a bit lost here Shasta, as the reason for me asking you earlier re 'what it was exactly that you were trying to prove' was based on your comments here. In a post:
Post subject: Merovingian Bloodlines and DNA Testing
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2012 12:47 pm

You said:

I think that there's a lot of confusion here (on this forum) between the contents of your book and the comments you make here. I agree with Tim that the contents of your book are irrelevant when you're being asked about comments made here.. If you make comments on a public forum, then you should expect questions. To answer those questions by keep repeating '....but you haven't read my book....' seems a bit strange to me. If someone is making comments about the contents of your book, and it turns out that person hasn't read your book, then I would agree that your '....but have you read my book?...' standpoint is valid.

As for the rest about KM - all over my head - even though I was on the PoS forum back in 2009 (and still am a member AFAIK).

Is this a case of deja-vu as hasn't this same exchange between Tim and yourself already occurred here within the past few months?

jlockest.......I understand the confusion I have caused regarding Merovingians .....and I agree with you.


Then stop following me from forum to form, thread to thread, and asking me questions about my ancestry..

You were on the PoS forum with me...You were harassing me there too...I left on good terms to avoid you. The DaVinci Forum, that was Loretta Kemsley I recall...she and I also remained in touch and friends...and we are still friends through Facebook...the friendships made and forged here at Arcadia, have continued through the years too..why dont you clarify the "kicked off" part---and how Andrew got threats from Kathleen McGowan ....and from the looks of the posts here recently, there have been far more blatant slanders and accusations going on here than she accused me of years ago...

When I returned here recently, it was during the time when Andrew had expressed concerns about the tomb hoax....since we had remained friends and in touch all these years, even on Facebook, I asked if my experience with tombs and relics could help shed by comparison... when I came back here..I gave away more copies of my book than I sold...so it was not about promoting me or my book at all..but rather comparing one kind of tomb research and official contacts over another approach...There were no plots or schemes or ego driven compulsions to return here. How sad to put it that way....that is all made up in your head, Tim..

-

Richard already answered that in his review of my book. He made it clear that he did not support the views that you, Tim, were expressing about me or my book on this forum..Yet you chose to ignore him and continue with your badgering....as though Richard's opinion meant nothing.. Had TCP read the book, it would be self-explanatory and none of this badgering and line of questioning would have been necesary...actually, it STILL is not appropriate under the circumstances.....This is why I loathe answering Tim over and over again...it is so pointless and just constitutes harassment.

The whole concept of "Merovingian" and a possible connection with desposyni was not begun by me. I am not sure how far back that originated. Was the concept first written in HBHG? Or 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail'? I don't know. I explained in previous posts that this concept did not originate with me. It would never have mattered to me, it would have remained a boring unrelated piece of history had it not been for two things....
1.
First, I knew our family name was connected with the Crusades because of the family Museum..This is something that TCP has fought diligently...saying the family genealogy was/is 'wrong' or flawed or not reliable, and I should therefor retract my statements and my hypothesis.
2.
Whoever started the bloodline hypothesis included names associated with my ancestors, according to the family Museum. Flawed or not, this is what brought me into this whole bloodline quest.

Apparently many people claimed decent from Jesus after this...some made blatantly false genealogies...some were outright nut cases with visions and reincarnations..either way, it was not an atmosphere that one would want to jump into. They sullied the field and that is obvious from Tim's angst .....



What I am saying in context here is that I was willing to put this taboo theory forward and represent myself as a possible descendant, IF this meant we could recover the DNA..... it wasn't from a bragging point. It was a scientific-research stance. I did not start the Merovingian-desposyni concept....nor did I enter this with visions or hallucinations or in any outright attempt to fraud anyone..I took the next logical step in a series of "what if" questions raised by others..
I stand by this. I own it. And there is no cause for shame or regret in any of this. I didn't "invent" Merovingians, nor the concept of desposyni. I did not include myself in this theory. Others did that for me. I was/ and I am asking the next logical step....
"if this point A is correct, then how do we get to point B?" My answer is through DNA.



Here I proposed that anyone under similar circumstances --and there must be millions of people in the world who connect their names in some rightful way to the 'Merovingian-Carolingian' ancestry (as someone suggested, probably at least half of Europe by now) can now use the DNA tool to help establish historical validation.

To my knowledge, no one else in the world has come forward and suggested the DNA Project...I am not aware of even one mention of DNA as a tool by any of the authors or researchers who first put forth the hypothesis. That is what I stand by and stand up for.
No one can make a valid claim without the DNA...So where do we start? I feel I proposed a logical and acceptable next step. I do stand up and own it as the next logical step...... but I did not invent the desposyni hypothesis.



You are certainly right. That is why I posted description of stalker-harrassment on this thread...in response to the actions of TCP here and elsewhere.....In the three forums that TCP and I were both on since 2009; PoS, DaVinci Code, and Arcadia, I left, directly or indirectly, because of him. I remember clearly that I left PoS because of his constant badgering. I never mentioned Kathleen McGowan here or elsewhere unless he did first and demanded answers to his questions concerning her, or the lawsuit, or anything else he can think of to keep bringing the topic to the surface..just as he did again last night...(as you can see from where the above thread started again).

I remember a comment he made earlier somewhere here in Arcadia...he wouldn't have minded IF ONLY I HAD NOT INCLUDED MY OWN BLOODLINE. Then it left the research realm and entered the "ego" realm in his mind...and he has attacked ever since..

In the above, most recent take-off on one of his attacks, he mocked my DNA and ancestry (again) when I mentioned the Kashmir connection (and the Japanese ancestor). However, if you think through ..in Kashmir are records that Jesus married a Kashmir girl and had a family there. In Kashmir are people who acknowledge this and claim they are among the living descendants today. By me having a bloodline associated with the region is all the more supportive of the entire theory! I DO have scientific connection with that region...! There is nothing made up or egotistical about any of this...it is valid research.

So to return to this whole Merovingian thing....I repeat I did not invent it or create it or try to jump on the bandwagon for the sake of a few bucks and a quick-sell book. I have the ancestry (according to others) and the DNA that makes it a valid research project.... well, it may have been valid until quacks and fakes and ego- driven hucksters DID jump in...How do I differentiate my quest from them? According to TCP, never....we are all lumped together and painted and tarred with the same brush..

Now let me ask you a hypothetical question....imagine if the slate was wiped clean...imagine there had been no McGowan claims, no Michael LaFosse....and I wrote my book....would it have appeared so controversial to you then?" Or would it have been an interesting project based on logic and science? When Richard Webster- who actually did read the book and knows how this all came together- wrote a review of the book, he made it clear that it didn't come off in the negative ways portrayed here...I cannot reprint word for word the entire book on this forum....this is why I get frustrated with people like TCP who just can't seem to pull it all together ---and yet can't read the book..I am practically re-writing the entire book here on this forum just to answer his demands, and that is not fair... how is any of this badgering fair to me? Tim's behavior on this and the other forums does legally constitute stalking and harassment. I mentioned his behavior to Andrew weeks ago..

Really Thomas? Who did this?

Shasta,
Well you've certainly confused me even more.
Let me start from the end of your post:


I don't know much of McGowan or LaFosse - and I repeat, I haven't read your book. To be perfectly honest, if your recent 'appearance' here was a marketing exercise, then it failed to win me over and make me want to buy the book. The reason being is that when questioned here about comments you've made here (ie nothing to do with the content of your book) you don't seem sure of what you're trying to do or even how to go about it. And make what appear to me to be totally conflicting statements:

...but you had said -


...and...



Now let me tackle your opening lines:


I was on Pos from about 2004 and here since 2010, and I don't recall Tim 'following' you - but I don't keep track of who joins forums when. It seems IMHO to be a case of forums where people discuss similar topics - so you tend to see similar faces in each location. From my perspective, you only recently 'appeared' here. You posted a couple of bits and questions were asked. Again IMHO, I haven't seen anyone hounding you or asking questions that I wouldn't expect to be asked based on the comments made by yourself.

You then said:


You may have not been the first to try to establish a link back to Jesus (or Zeus or Hercules or Ghengis Khan or Caesar...etc for that matter), but it does seem to be what you're peddling. I haven't a clue as to whether your links back to some bloke in the 11th century is correct or not (ie whether you are link to a Merovingian King Of Jerusalem). I personally don't care about that side per se.
My concern - and this isn't based on religion per se - and the reason for asking you what you're trying to prove, is/was to do with the link to Jesus. And it's the same concern I have with anyone who is trying to establish a descent from Jesus/MM (or A.n Other) - what are you then implying by that descent? A whole series of mini gods/godettes running around the world? That descendants are purely normal? That Jesus wasn't then G_d? I think if you (or anyone else) go down that route, then you should have already addressed those questions in your own mind. IE you should have thought of what the implications are of what you're saying.
I found that a bit surreal really - as when Tim called the tomb 'silly' - you appeared to be indignant as Tim's comment may have offended millions of people. Yet you can't see that what you're potentially trying to show is also highly offensive to millions of people.

I won't even bother going down how on earth you expect to prove a link anyway, as I think, despite what you said in the passages I quoted earlier, you backtracked and said that a link to Jesus wasn't possible (or did I dream that?).

Again then you seemed to contradict the 'facts of your bloodline' by saying:


So in logical steps to get from A to Z ... 1) you have to show that you are linked to the Merovingians? 2) You have to show that the Merovingians are linked to Jesus? 3) You have to show that Jesus had children?
Is that correct?
And aren't you stating here (as fact?) that you are descended from the Merovingians:
...and...
...and ...


So if you make those comments here, again I am not saying anything about a book I haven't read, aren't they then up for 'grabs'? IE if someone doesn't think that you have your links right, then it is fair on a public forum for them to express that? It is you who are stating them as facts.
I would also say, that if you're to start quoting your ancestry as 'fact', then using the 'according to others' ...and '....it's not my fault, others said it not me....' type comment is a bit off for a 'researcher' isn't it? As surely, if you have to prove the link back, which it appears is what you're after, then you should first make sure the connection has been peer checked before putting it before others? So either your bloodline link is a fact or it isn't.


I won't bother going into the stalker-harrassment stuff - I'm sure Tim will come back to you on that.

Shasta,
Some might conclude that the assiduity with which you have promoted your origins and book might be described in this way.
Your recent posts may, equally, been interpreted as an attempt to characterise Tim's posts as unwarranted attacks whereas they appear to be simply challenges to a creaky and regularly amended theory.
It may also be seen that your attempts to picture yourself as a poor , innocent victim of stalking is disingenuous at best.

No doubt that you and Tim have a considerable history but the reality is that you've brought this story to a public discussion Forum.
Many might see that it contains fundamental inconsistencies and, no doubt Tim feels justified in challenging them.
He has a long track record on this Forum of detailed and resourceful work, none of which can be seen as gratuitous or ad hominen attacks. It's you who's personalising this, not Tim.
To a disinterested observer it would seem that you've realised that you're way out of your league and now appealling for protection against a cyber bully might be seen as tantamount to acknowledgement of this.

TD

Thank you Thomas and Jokest..

I don't have much interest in replying to you now....as you pointed out, I seem to have missed the mark completely so there is no point..
if I didn't get it right the previous attempts I sure wont now....and no, I do not retract my statement about harassment and stalking..it has been TCP that returns to me again and again, regardless what thread we are on or how removed from "that" topic we are...he hammers away demanding answers to ridiculous questions ( such as information that is in a 1936 book and outdated)...
He keeps returning to this....and to KMG....I try to answer truthfully, fairly, and upfront...but how can I when he throws out character remarks accusing me of all manner of ill behavior, using words like 'jealousy', or 'frivolous lawsuits'...meant to create a very different impression on you than the facts would prove otherwise.....I don't return to these topics....he does...so how can he accuse me of coming to this forum to "promote" ???

I tried not to laugh when I read this...No. You are wrong. See above.

This is clearly stalking and harassment..You have missed a few points here and there, such as a family in Kashmir making the same claims...ever wonder why they did? So Jesus may have a bloodline after all! But of course they are in India...how silly of me to ask why I have a DNA match there ....Tim made some lame reference to my grandmothers not telling me...... If you understood little details like this, how important they are to me, how much a part of this journey for me, and how Tim will always find a way to trash them.. it might have helped to understand his bad attitude has nothing to do with "shoddy research".. .especially revealing when he deliberately falsifies information here.... but hey....no big deal..stand by your man!



Peer review came directly from an established family Museum...and has been revised by them and others several times...however, Tim asked me about a 1936(38?) book that is clearly outdated and irrelevant. He does the same with the dozens of family history sites that are up on the web...Lots of Peer previews....but he will look for the one that claims they can't find the missing links...or are not sure if Marets means we came from a swamp nowhere near the "good Marets' family...and he will harp on that repeatedly, knowing there is no one right answer... but whatever answer I choose, he will deem wrong and inefficient..He is blowing smoke in most of his questions...distorting them or deliberately misrepresenting them...and I'm supposed to accept this with good graces? Naw. I don't think that is possible...Out of my league? Err. Ahem. This is about deliberate deciet to demean and defame someone...and what league would you place that in?

Examples: accusing me of making 20 million dollar lawsuits out of jealousy or self pity when he clearly had the facts and knew that wasn't truth...but a deliberate attempt to mislead and to create a bad impression...sorry, but such attacks do make me a tad paranoid and concerned about his intentions..

If you "don't get it" I can't be of much help to you now, , can I!..

So have a nice day anyway...

Shasta

Dear Sue,

Do you hurt yourself often, jumping to conclusions the way you do?

TCP has sent me only 1 PM in all the years I have been a member here, and I promise, it had NOTHING to do with you.

My fax comment was quoting from a conversation you and TCP were having ON THIS THREAD.

You ASSUMED TCP had sent me a PM and then you RAN with it! Acting as if I had TOLD you he sent me PM's..... WTH?

And you want me to read your book? Yeah....I see that happening (sarcasm off).

Serendipity.....thanks for clarifying....you stated that you were referring to faxes that I sent Tim.
Of course it could be interpreted to mean the present....You never clarified ....you asked me "what about the faxes I sent Tim" right after a conversation about recent PM's between us... There was no need for your sarcasm...

Shasta,
I'm not Tim, Tim is not TD, I am not TD... the same as you are not Sheila. So saying what happened with Tim in reply to me or TD just confuses me even more.
You seem now to throw up accusations about Tim as replies now, rather than '...but you haven't read the book...'.
I don't care about any feud you may have (or not) with Tim now or in the past and I haven't read your book.

I get lost by your replies (that's me - I get lost) - so quoting what Tim's said or not again becomes as irrelevant as what your book says. You said something here, I have asked questions, and then you reply to those questions (hopefully) and not just say '...have you read the book...' or '...Tim is having a go at me...'..

You seem to be saying that you do want to prove something. You seem to be saying that:
1) You have to prove that you are linked to the Merovingians. Or else you don't have a family 'right' to ask fior DNA tests in Kashmir. Is that correct?
2) You have to make the link to the Merovingians because the tomb in Kashmir is Jesus' and the Merovingians are linked to Jesus. Is that correct?
3) You seem to be saying that you have proof of some of the line and that lineage is a proven 'fact'.

My questions were/are the same then.
How do you think you are going to 'prove' this complete link (without any DNA from the target)? Have you then thought about the impact of what you're saying and how many people that concept may offend? As I said, you had a dig at Tim for calling the tomb 'silly' as his comment could offend. Do you not think your comment and 'research' could be seen as highly offensive? And if you could prove a DNA link all the way back, do you then think there are load of demi-gods floating around - or was (in your mind) Jesus simply mortal with mortal children (and if so, what then is so different between Jesus and any other 'carpenter' from 1st century Palestine?).

Lastly, isn't point 2 above the stumbling block? AFAIK, not many people 'believe' that Jesus had children, so how do you get proof of a lineage from Jesus to Merovee - a line that isn't accepted as already proven? And isn't there some odd Quinotaur creature in the way (which presumably would queer the DNA pitch somewhat) somewhere down the line? Wasn't the Jesus-Merovingian link an HBHG thing that was never proven (not sure how it could have been) - I don't have my HBHG here to read what they said.