ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
I wonder what is the logic and elementary good sense of those that now ask for proofs that Ben Hammott is a hoaxer giving the fact (first of all) that HE, the one who pretended to have made an extremely important discovery ... has not produced any proof that a real discovery ever took place.
What are we really speaking about?
About a person, who dizzy with the perspective of being filmed by a Hollywood team, starts producing coffers that contain objects obtained from the relics' black market and many bottles with messages like in the worst movies?
About a person who in extremely dubious conditions has produced a film that presents us with a semi mummified corpse? If the story of the tomb proves to be a con (even on the basis of the precedence enounced by Andy Gough in his stand) the natural question arises:
In what circumstances did Wilkinson obtain a corpse?
Actually the correct question would be ... in the jurisdiction of which country would Mr. Wilkinson prefer to be put to trial? In what measure, cumulatively, all the criminal offenses committed by Wilkinsons fall upon his acolytes? In what manner can Sandy Hamblett be exonerated of the implication in this fraud? There still are correspondence notes and filmed images, that prove more than a firm support of this lady for Ben's "cause".
In what measure Bill Kersey, the incontestable author of the famous notes, cam be exonerated of the guilt of producing fake proofs which to support:
1. A false story, on which time, space and money was spent from the budget of the Bloodline movie (actually it is the story that buried the Bloodline movie).
2. A false story, on which Bill Wilkinson wrote a book which he sold to make money.
A useful exercise for those that know French, it is interesting to read briefly some of Kersey's "translations" from French. These reveals an unmistakable "stylistic signature".
Beyond all these things that are in fact related to law, to pure criminality, the most shocking aspect is the reactions of some members of the Arcadia community. To paraphrase Roger, they evolve spectacularly from pathetic to sublime and slip back to embarrassing.
How can a mentally sane person to pretend to be taken seriously and even worse to ... support someone just because:
1. He had access to Chateau Hautpoul.
2. He loved the book.
First of all, anyone can visit Chateau Hautpoul with the condition of having the patience to listen to old Marius' stories. Just as Mr. Ferral will always be willing to report strange things to any ignorant that wishes to make a sensational film about the "mystery"...
In what concerns the book, many funny things could be said regarding the questionable tastes of a person crazy about a book written by a semi-analphabet.
By this we can understand that Ben is loved for being an ignorant, because he is part of the masses and has the courage to defy the rules. It is very romantic, I could say even heroic, but all these have nothing to do with authenticity. Ben could eventually receive an award for originality but that's it.
The truth is more relative the more popular it gets.
The problem everyone should ask themselves is if:
-Bill Wilkinson is a person with behavioral problems.
-Bill Wilkinson is a person that does anything to become famous.
-Bill Wilkinson is a mentally sane person, but is taking pleasure from making fun of people...
-Bill Wilkinson is a professional that does these things because he has someone behind him.
In this last point the problem of resources is posed.
Thus, if there is no one behind Bill Wilkinson, why is he willing to invest so many resources to direct all these hoaxes?
Everything that Bill Wilkinson intended was to create a myth upon which to write a book and then sell? The final goal was to make money from selling the book? Did the money obtained from the selling of the book cover the expenses needed to elaborate all these hoaxes?
Obtaining advantages as a result of selling a lie is called felony. This felony was committed by a PERSON to whom other persons associated themselves. The association makes them directly or indirectly ACCOMPLICES.
Mr Gough ,this is an ethic statement:
Just a reminder that we cannot call people liars, fakes, frauds or the like in our posts. We can disagree, but not slander, no matter how righteous we think we are. Failure to adhere to this principle may result in the deletion of your post and suspension from the forum.
This imposed - on the fly - rule of game, leaves room for a policy with multiple standards and adjustable to different agendas!!
In no case to the competition of IDEAS, to RESEACH, to DEBATES and in no case to the TRUTH!!!
Andy, the policy prohibiting ... the sanctioning of a person suspected and/or proved of having committed a crime, also logically attracts COMPLICITY, even if it could be considered a passive complicity.
You cannot sanction a fraud if you don't speak of the charlatan!
The fraud was not done by volatile, theoretical or abstract beings.
It's NOT the same for IDEAS. Which we can or not put to debate. A fraud is being done by real people among us.
They have rights and obligations just as the rest of us.
But unlike us, they understand the rights as a possibility to cheat on others.
Deceits can be big or small.
If everything Bill Wilkinson did will be confirmed we are not talking only about felony but also about relapsing. Few are those that know the real ins and outs of the "hammott afair" in the Aude valley, but there are many that consider that in the end...even if debunked, the problem can be reduced to a minor offense or to a bad but elaborate joke.
Well now, for those that are close to the "Hammott case" it is known that this fraud has extreme implications, which in time will be proven ... It is also known that the entire affair was about to create ... at least a diplomatic scandal...
And because I've started with the story of an obnoxious justiciary who doesn't want the private properties in France to be trespassed in the name of pseudo-archeology, let us end in a malicious note. No one should complain that the apples are sour. The story of Rennes le Chateau is not hard to digest. Is just the ones serving the menu that have absurd claims. Bon appétit!
Sorry , I couldn't help myself to write a loooong and mischievous article.
Old habits die hard !