Aprositus Nesos wrote:
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?
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.
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!
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?