Arcadia Discussion Zone

OK. So even though the 'hoax' (Tomb and subsequent artefacts) was Ben's - created wholly by him without any other party being involved (apart from one SFX guy brought in to build part of a large version of the tomb) - the promotion of the hoax was largely via third parties? Those third parties are all now claiming ignorance even though (I presume) they were all 'researchers' and had recourse to visit RLC (and access to Ben) and to actually press to see the Tomb and how on earth its location equated to the alleged clues left by Sauniere?
Did the movie carry any form of disclaimer stating that the Tomb hadn't been verified by their production team?

Edited: and Rene who did the interview with Ben yesterday, is the same Rene who was the producer on the Bloodline film?

Wasn't it claimed that DRAC was shown the original tomb entrance, not the "naturally eroded" one, and the official deemed it too dangerous for entering until they geared up to investigate safely? My struggling attempt of keeping an open mind had closed long before but that DRAC event was notable and nothing else came about from it, of course.

The story of how he duped the filmmakers and friends is a very complex story indeed. Over the years, some thought they had been taken to the real tomb site, but none ever saw a 'live' filming of the tomb.

Also, when 'Ben Hammott' left Bruce Burgess to film the tomb alone (the scene where he cuts the shroud) all of that film was already in the can, filmed in the UK. He simply swapped out the blank tape with his canned film, I'm sure. I think that it must have looked pretty compelling to Bruce when he returned with that footage.

Pat always gave me the impression he had actually seen the tomb, but I cannot remember him saying that (just an impression, mind you.) Sandy Hamblett had been pushing Bill Wilkinson for a live filming for a very long time, rightly saying that this was the only way to prove its existence. Remember too: Wilkinson did nothing to dissuade the myth that he had taken the DRAC to the site. That, as far as I know, never happened.
Paul

TCJ,
But presumably no official body was notified of the 'contents' of the find, or else surely they're just as complicit in all this - or they have a really laissez faire (is that correct, my French is 40 year old 'O' level) attitude and just haven't got round to do anything yet - as I can't believe that no one was interested in the discovery of a potential body.

The villagers don't care. They have been laughing and shaking their heads the whole time.

If 'Ben Hammott' did take the DRAC to a site, he almost certainly showed them the fake shaft he had created and buried, probably citing how dangerous excavation would be in the crumbling cave, conveniently forgetting the camera cable, etc. However, I really do not think the DRAC ever went there. It would have been way too risky for Wilkinson.

You know, it was Roscoe, of this parish, who has very wisely tended to give this whole subject an extremely wide berth over the years (and how I fervently wish I had done the same), who once offered the opinion that, if someone believed there was an unidentified body in the ground, somewhere near Rennes, why not simply notify the police. In hindsight, somebody should have done.

OK - so at least the 'film makers' know how the location of the Tomb fitted in with the clues left by Sauniere as they went to the location of the Tomb, but didn't actually see inside? The film makers then believed that a tomb *with a body* in it, had been discovered in the late 90's (is that correct), and not one official body had shown an interest by, what, 2006?
So today, the film makers can go back to where the film was allegedly made? And not one person did try to get their own footage, even though the location of the Tomb was known?

Are you the same person on the chat room last night talking about how 'Ben' was forced into a fake confession by the Vatican?
And if so, do you seriously believe that? Or were you joking? If joking, I can appreciate the humor.

Would a 'hoaxer' make 60+ trips to the site of his crime? And then out himself? No. It is clear that this entire confession is the hoax. Ben is going to bide his time and continue to guard his tomb.

Hammot on DRAC:



http://www.benhammott.com/drac_meetings.html

Yes, that is essentially correct. However, I know at least one person did make an attempt to get confirmatory footage without Bill Wilkinson's knowledge. Otherwise, those who thought they knew where the tomb was never betrayed 'Ben Hammott' by going there alone.

I had a pretty good idea where he had taken those people, but I too thought it inappropriate to go there alone, and never looked for it. I did however finally agree to go with Sandy to the site this spring (see my earlier posts on this.)

Paul

Yes, thanks for that. I had completely forgotton that claim. However, I still do not know how much of it is true. If they went, then his comment about examining the 'interior' is disengenuous - as he could have showed them a cave, and possibly the shaft he had created and buried, but never the 'tomb' interior, which never existed.

Curious that the DRAC would not ask for a live filming at the site, don't you think?

OK - that is Ben 'The Hoaxer''s take on what occurred, what did DRAC say to the film makers or did the film makers just take everything that Ben said as being 'true'? Surely, you don't know you have 'archaeology' until you open up such a site. So, until that point you must report the find to someone else - the police(?) - as a potential body is involved?
The problem I'm having getting my head around, is that the film makers appear to have ignored any form of 'due diligence'. I can totally understand having to take something that can't be reproduced at face value (ie is the footage of the Yeti or a UFO or Nessie - and you can then only vet the footage that you have been given), but if the location of the Tomb was known - and the film makers knew a body was involved - why simply take Ben's word? In academia don't they use a peer review process? When someone makes a 'documentary' that purports to be 'true', doesn't it then go through a similar process? (I'm not saying that trying to be funny - I simply don't know how factual things are made).

This is when the DRAC official's existent - nonexistent secretary mystery began also with the Vatican catch-all conspiracy which includes the DRAC "we never of heard of this" saga.

He was desperately hoping to find something real. That's why.

And for the record: he did not plan 'out himself.' He was forced into it by the sudden revelations about Loch Ness and the ark, Sandy's threat to go to the site, her threat to hire a lawyer, and because he could no longer hide the fake tomb from Pat Jokl.

And if your idea that the Vatican is silencing 'Ben Hammott' (a fiction you insist on clinging to) then why is he in RLC right now? Does your worldview include albino assassins from Opus Dei too?

jlockest,
It must seem very surreal looking at this from the outside.
Paul, who answered the question above is close to Sandy and, as you might infer, is trying very hard to
whip up some kind of righteous indignation and demonise Ben even more to exculpate his close friend Sandy.
Sandy Hamblett, as you may be aware jlockest, was one of the fervent champions of the Tomb.
We are told she still reads these boards on whose behalf Paul is now participating, but whose posts about this process differ in detail to the defence now being offered.
At first view one might imagine that an archeologist and editor of a research journal like Sandy might well have applied even the most cursory form of due diligence to these claims but, apparently not.
She was happy to participate with Bill Kersey in the whole process for over a decade without once asking for proof.
Your point about the due process that this would have undergone in the Academic world is why it doesn't touch this genre with a very long barge pole!

Paul,
It might appear to the out side observer that you are rather overplaying your hand here which does raise an interesting series of questions.
In an earlier post you kindly shared that one of the reasons that you were prepared to force Ben's hand was that you
" loved " her. Which particular greek version of this word did you have in mind?
What was your dear wife's reaction to being informed of your decision to go to RLC and possibly devote a considerable sum of money to proving Sandy right?

TD

JLockest,

I think the answer lies in the fact that hey were filmmakers, not academics. However, Rene Barnett and Bruce Burgess did submit various items to real academics for review.
For example:
1. The 'Bigou' document was carbon dated at Oxford (I don't know about the ink.)
2. At least two forensic experts believed the filmed body to be real.
3. They had the handwriting of the bottle documents analyzed and this person believed the Sauniere signature authentic.
4. The contents of the chest were evaluated by Dr. Gabriel Barkay (but it is rightly pointed out that these can be purchased on the antiquities market.)

I'm certain there was more, but that is what I can think of for the moment. As for convincing the filmmakers, that must have been an enormously complex series of lies, slights of hand, etc. over a very long period of time.

And IMHO a huge desperation to 'believe'. For me at least, this is the key issue.

Did you write this or did I write this? You are obstructing the path to truth with your deliberate mis-attributions and your support of Ben Hammott. Why are you choosing to believe a known liar?

Actually, thats probably only your partial view of it.
Some might view it in different terms; they may conclude that the willingness to believe was driven, primarily, by the hope of a world exclusive and the resulting kudos.
Enormously complex? Ben has never come across as an intellectual giant but with some resourcefulness and a cheeky chappie persona which fooled a long list of folk who should have known better but desperately wanted to believe.

TD

Mon cher Thomas, vous continuez de faire la grave erreur de toujours echafauder des suppositions crapuleuses en oubliant que votre handicap mental vous interdit ce genre d'exercice sans vous couvrir de ridicule. Vous avez maintenant toutes les apparences d'une de ces petites frappes de Fleet Street dont votre pays detient le secret et en fait l'elevage exclusif.

Vous devriez vraiment apprendre a vous taire, ne serait-ce que pour preserver un modicum de respectabilite, si c'est encore possible.

DRAC was taken to the cave but Ben refused to show them the shaft there. This is what Bruce Burgess told me in the respective thread.

What is extremely interesting: IF Ben would have "made" this tomb by himself (and if it would be in London or somewhere) then he COULD prove that. Over photos, over explaining how he really made the mummy, etc etc. Can he prove that? Is he ready to do so? He would have nothing to loose to really show this "tomb" and indicate its location.

BUT: I think that is just another lie. There is a story behind the story and the one he presents (made everything by himself, bought hair from Jerusalem, ink from Paris, etc) is freaking shaky....

LET ME SPECULATE: I still believe that Ben himself has no clue where this faked tomb really is...I can be totally wrong but I do not buy his explanations so far. But he of course can prove this speculation wrong by giving some proofs of how he made this fake. Photos, tapes, showing the location (let me guess: it does not exist anymore...). I think the 60+ times in RLC was trying to locate this tomb and of course there were more people involved because you cannot hold a shaky camera AND cut the shroud at the same time. There have been at least 2 persons. So one already missing in the game...

Not that I believe the tomb is real (should be clear for the ones who know my fights with the "team") but I think that is not the full picture Ben is presenting us....

I don't 'know' the characters at all as I only joined here a while back (drawn by the scent of the Crista ) so didn't read the old posts to see who was who and what they believed(?). I did look at the Tomb man stuff way back, but it didn't ring true to me, so I never really 'read' up on it.
I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but just trying to understand the timeline of it all over the past day or so, just makes it seem even more unbelievable now than when I first stumbled on it. But maybe if I had been reading about all the various scientific tests that had occurred over the years, then maybe I would have also left my incredulity on the doorstep as some other have.
BUT even that (the 'proof' of the scientific tests) doesn't seem to excuse the role of Bloodline in all this to me. I never bought or saw that film either - but I did see reviews on various sites. I just don't see how they can claim ignorance at this stage, where it seems all the evidence it was a hoax was actually within their grasp.
Even if the film makers HAD believed in the Tomb when the film was made pre 2008, then that doesn't explain the 4 years between the film's release and now. If it was me, I would have been pestering DRAC or whoever else Ben had said he'd notified asking them what their plans were to identify the body. Having just watched Ben and some others open one of the Sauniere 'bottles' in a Youtube video, I don't think I would have trusted Ben providing the samples for scientific tests had I been part of the Bloodline production team.

PS other posts have been made while I typed this and had a cup of tea - so some of the above may already have been addressed.

My love for Sandy is that of friendship, nothing more. Surely one can tell thier friends they love them? It is one of the most decent, human things we can do, don't you think? And in my mind, sacrifice for friends is a virtue, even of the financial kind.

My reason for my active participation in this forum of late is mainly to express my anger at Wilkinson.

As for my wife of 26 years, she likes Sandy a good deal too and has spent time with us in France too. She supported the idea to get live footage of the tomb this spring. As I explained to her last week, it was very unlikely we would actually discover a real tomb, but if we did, I would contribute (financially) to its excavation.