Arcadia Discussion Zone

Bill Kersey, will you submit to an independent polygraph examination to answer questions about your possible involvement in the suspected Ben Hammott hoax? If not, why?

Thanx to Hammott, thanx to Burgess!

Without the Bloodline-story we wouldn't have much to discuss, would we?

Dear Bill,

When you say "certifying Ben Hammott's genuine discoveries", judging by this reply with the "my" and " me", you mean your own.

I don't share your point of view that it's 'probably more Merovingian in its connections'. Very hard to substantiate I think. Would you care to share the rationale behind that statement?

Regards | Raven

jb - is it bona fide pom-pom or just an artistic design?

I think Bill meant that he was investigating Visigothic related sites rather than Magdalene related ones prior to getting involved with Bloodline, therefore he didn't investigate the Cave of the Magdalene before the notes told him to.

My question is when's the bloody film getting shown in the UK ? I mean fabrication or not, we'll all be wanting to see it. Maybe it'll make up for the disappointment that was the DVC movie.
BTW, Angels and Demons is currently being filmed in Rome, with Mr Hanks again as Langdon. Hope he and the director show some improvement this time.

About 2014, I should think, judging by its snail's pace release schedule around the US.

It's frustrating, isn't it? Mind you, we've got enough mileage out of it up to now; I can't imagine what it's going to be like when we've all actually seen it.

Quick true "Bloodline" related story I've been looking forward to sharing:

The first time I saw the Nicolas Haywood "Apocalypse" clip, it was early on a Saturday morning, and I was at home. Just as I was getting into his portenteous end-of-the-world spiel, the doorbell rang. I opened the door to find two well dressed middle aged women standing there. They were Jehovah's Witnesses, selling "The Watchtower". And the banner headline that was emblazoned across the front cover? "APOCALYPSE".

Spooky!

I would say that Bloodline's shelf life after next month will depend entirely on how much money JZ Knight throws at it after it screens in Yelm. Actuals haven't been reported on the film since June 1st, after two successive weeks of steep drops (-40.9% and -59.5%). The earnings to date can't be very high.

The Vatican scenes in A&D are actually being shot in a replica set built at the Hollywood Park racetrack. It's pretty amazing.

TCP

'*'

Unfortunately there's only the slightest chance it's Merovingian in it's connections, given the fact that Merovingian dynasties never actually ruled Septimania (there were only a number of more or less successful invasions by respective Merovingian rulers, but the Visigoths never really lost control over the region). Septimania as name given to the region was even replaced by the Visigoth rulers by Gothia - and known by that name to approximately the tenth century.

Actually, from Visigothic rule it passed to Moorish rule and after that the Carolingians had their turn.

When it comes to the parchments found by Bill (Ben) and yourself (amongst others) I am more and more inclined to believe that you personally were the one responsible for having originally concocted them; I'm very sorry to have to say so. Why? Because of the very unlikely explanations you give to questions and your earlier use of the same "not conforming" French grammar. "Ayez de la patience" is used when describing a person's characteristics in French. Obviously you meant to say be patient or have patience. In French this is translated as Prenez patience or Patientez. If I'm convincingly proved wrong I'll be the first to apologize, but for now - and supported by all the previously mentioned circumstantial evidence by, amongst others, forum members - I stand by my conviction.

And to conclude with a very simple code - which should be no problem for an expert on Visigothic history: what made the cock (and I do not mean a male body part ) Adaulphus do in Gaul?

Dear Bill,

I am re-reading your Still spins the spider book from 2004. It says in there you 'Keys to Antiquity' book will be published shortly, that the 'cache' you located would be excavated soon and that there are three more sites you have found. When is this book coming out? What sites? When will they be excavated? By whom?

In the book you claim you identified 'golgotha', below the church containing the body of Mary Magdalene. What a coincidence that the Bloodline parchments say exactly that. They are even written in the same erroneous way that you speak French. (on page 67 you say so yourself: 'it was then that I realised that my French was not as good as it might have been'). You talk about Visigothic and Templar sites in the region without ever giving any substance or sources about them or the way you plot all sorts of way points in the landscape based on complex geometric shapes related to a long string of artworks including of course Les Bergers d' Arcadie II.

You predict a massive archeological dig in 2004, based on your research that never happened.

Today it's 2008. You make it very clear that Ben followed your directions. You dowsed towards a buried chest in a place we know was empty, you led him to the bottles with paper in them that looks a year old and written in very very bad French.

The discoveries of Ben Hammott 100% match your unsubstantiated claims from your book of 2004.

You tell the readers to wait for you to be ready and the excavations to start, you do the same here.

I fully agree with Monsieur le Comte here. You got caught up in your own fantasy. When the film comes out we will be able to look at the parchments in detail. I predict here that we will find a large number of errors in the logic and the French that will remind us of your book and 'research'.

Let's revisit this thread when a copy of the film becomes available.

Rgds | Raven

If I were Bill Kersey, I would want to take a polygraph as soon as possible to show how wrong all those Andrew Gough forumites were in thinking that I wrote those parchments and planted that chest. Of course, if I were Bill Kersey and I DID fake all that stuff, I would never take a polygraph and I would act like I didn't even see this post.

'*'

I expect to see the Bill Kersey polygraph article on Corjan's site or Rennessence shortly then. Here's a link to an examiner, surely someone can fund this. http://www.guyheseltine.co.uk/

'*'

Dear Bill,

As usual, not really the answers we've all been waiting for. Just repeating the same old all over again. I in turn fully agree with Raven concerning the comments and questions he raised about your book "Still spins the spider". And again, no adequate - or even attempts to - answers given by yourself in response to these comments and questions besides a "you'll see".....

As you already - as do we all by now - must realize, Bill (Ben) his book will proof nothing! His explanations on how to read the Rennes-le-château church sceneries what in turn will lead to the presumed locations of the bottles and so forth, will obviously all be very conveniently and automatically coherent. This could have been considered as the proof needed for the finds authenticity, if only Bill (Ben) had published his book years ago as announced back then.

Publication of Bill Wilkinson's book after the finds is, unfortunately, to be considered useless as it will be nicely written to "fit the finds". So we'll end up with a book that will proof the validity of the finds by reading the sceneries in the church and the finds themselves that in their turn will proof the interpretations of the sceneries to be correct. All beautifully consistent, but completely without value anymore when it comes to proving all your claims - your being yourself, Bill (Ben) and the involved members of the Bloodline team. The ultimate conclusion to be drawn from this is that it is a total waste of money to buy Bill's book because it will only put upright researchers - you know, the kind of people who really take the time to delve into dusty archives and talk to people involved - on the wrong trail and into a world of fantasies like Raven already commented upon while discussing some claims in your previous book. In fact, you most likely put the finds - like the bottles and stone - there yourself and this closes the loop when it comes to interpreting the church sceneries, for now the interpretation will definitely yield the desired results! Quod erat demonstrandum

But let me help you by offering a way out: just tell the truth and let everybody know it was just an exercise to have researchers into RLC realize it's very easy to be fooled into believing an unsubstantiated claim. You of course being the "modern version" of Philippe de Chérisey, the great mastermind behind the parchments, and Bill (Ben - and for clarity's sake let's from now on call him Bill2 ) being Plantard, the one that steps forward into the spotlight with all kinds of spectacular claims but also the one who will take the fall if everything blows up (hope VeryAngryMother is around to intervene and protect him from that horrible faith )....indeed, a very modern Prieuré de Sion!

If this all sounds harsh to you, well it is. I for one am really tired of continuously being lied to and treated like some little kid who is easily fooled by his éminence grise. Just show some evidence!!! Publish the parchments including the one that was in the vial in the box here on Andy's forum as a first attempt to clear the muddy waters. It will be just a matter of time before someone other than yourselves will find the tomb(s) if (!!) it is all genuine. All of your faces are very familiar by now and other researchers of sorts will only simply have to follow you while you're heading for the location......

By the way, did you manage to solve the code yet I presented you with? You may find the answer will help you understand your Visigoth theories better

And to conclude with a Latin phrase that must really warm your heart: super omnia vincet veritas

Comte

Bill2 have no fear - VeryAngryMother is here!

By carefully comparing the two tomb videos I'm now confident that they both show the same cavern because, although it's not easy to tell, there are enough matching points on the wall which can be seen at the top part of the screen to convince me that it is really the same wall. I can't explain what would cause the large chest to appear so differently positioned though, or why the book has moved and a couple other objects that were on it in the first video are gone, or why the cross on the shroud is different. It's either a real cavern, though, or the same fake cavern was used in both videos. Before, I thought the first video used a model and the second a full sized version. Now I think they're either both models or both full size. As someone else mentioned before, the way the dust wafts down from the hole looks like it really is a large open space so i guess it must be full size, If it's a real tomb, somebody must have gone in there and changed some things between the two videos.

Watch this space, huh jb.

..

Precisely. You should have used a laser printer instead of the ink jet printer you used because ink jet printers use dye ink, which can run when it gets wet. You used a printer instead of writing directly on the parchment because you didn't want to screw up the parchment if you made a mistake. You wrote it on paper, saved a scan of the paper and then printed it on the parchment with your ink jet printer. Look how bad the ink ran, Bill.

Why, is Bill going to get a GOOD video of the tomb now? Tell him to do this. Put a camera on a remote control all terrain truck, those radio controlled ones. Then put a rope on it and lower it into the tomb. He can then drive it around in there and get some better video and then pull it back up.

jb - you are a saucy pickle.

'*'

Indeed, another howler - that should be "illegitimi non carborundum"...

Bill, you don't seem to have much luck with Latin languages, do you?

TCP