Arcadia Discussion Zone

Acacia might contain psycho-active ingrediants but these will not effect humans unless they cross the blood brain barrier. It is a notoriously and perhaps rightly difficult task to do this with DMT. So if the Acacia was used in construction then unless it is being constantly burned and inhaled it's not going to make much difference to the brain IMO



maybe a 'model that does something' is clearer
I think the building descriptions and dimensions are detailed in the OT, what is not actually known is what was inside. Was it the Holy of Holies of the Egyptians, the Ben Ben and if so was that a crystal or something else? I agree that do try and recreate something that is already a mystery and then claiming it works is ridiculous. But then I'm getting used to that

How can anyone construct the 'Ark' by using anything other than what it says in the Bible, unless there's another source that gives a complete construction method?
If you add anything (ie coils, wire etc) aren't you just attempting to make what you want to make? Couldn't I simply say that my Roberts WM-202 is really then the Ark? OK, it has different dimensions, different materials, different construction method, different external appearance - but apart from that it's a spitting image of the 'Ark'. And what is even more surprising, is that my 'Ark' actually works as a 'radio' and even takes a signal out of the ether. G_d works in mysterious ways (especially if you use Microsoft tools).

Andy said…

It has come to my attention that a covert project is under way to sell an artificial / fake / recently-constructed Ark of the Covenant look-alike to private investors for an enormous sum of money. In this instance, however, the plan is not to publicise the alleged find until it has been sold; only then will it be presented to the public, so as to avoid the critical eye of sceptics. It appears that the Ark of the Covenant look-alike is located in a cave, and I have been presented with details from a reliable source. I believe that it is in our interest, and we have an obligation as a genre, to expose this deception.

My whistleblowing represents a stand against such continued nonsense. A fake Ark of the Covenant is now for sale. All I can say is buyer beware.

who is the Hoaxer? where is this cave situated? and mores the point, who is going to be stupid enough to fall for it and pay huge amounts of money

quite a lot of people if his track record is anything to go by...can i be bold enough to suggest you've missed the point of the original post.

well certainly no one seems to have bought it entirely, hence we are in the same position as when it was
allegedly found. Did Bruce really "buy" it? Or did he just "rent" it? and use it to make a film and when that was done was able to absolve himself of any cupability of fakery by saying he'd been duped too? I sure don't see Bruce as a bit of a muppet. I think he saw an opportunity and that the only one who could possibly come out of it bad was the possible perpetrator and Bruce would have no guilt over that

I think the hoaxer and his team are the ones who should be under the microscope here, rather than the dupes.

oh I agree sheila. Bruce IMO just did his job - made a quite entertaining film

I remember telling someone a while back that if this gets exposed as fake (the Tomb) there will be a lot of seriously pissed off people - I've always felt Pat was a genuine guy and I wouldn't like to see him pissed off if this is what transpires
The awful thing is that if it is faked they are playing with things that many people hold dear and are very passionate about - they will not have that perspective and perhaps not know what damage they have done.

I think Andy was pointing out Hoaxers and Hoaxes in general and not specifically saying team Hammot are involved in this one! That's the impression I get anyway

eh no, this is another Hammott Hoax....Hoax No. 3

the implication is that "Hammott" faked Nessie, The Tomb and now the Ark

?

I just wanted to remind people of the link to the book you put up Davinho on the Ark of the Covenant - hope you don't mind, quite serendipitous. Also thank-you for putting it up in case I forgot to tell you that.
I was fascinated the other day and read the preview they allow you at Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Opening-Ark-Coven ... 156414903X

a very good and plausible book IMO
one conclusion is that the Ark ended up in the US.

Don' forget the bottles - still the worst made up thing in my opinion.

agreed, but i count the bottles and their contents in with the "Tomb".

well the "finders" certainly do don't they, so yes either way they are part of the same "thing"

in my 2nd film on youtube of the grotto where the box was (let's say) dug up I show the likely place it was. There is still a slight indentation there. There is only one place that seems likely and it would be amazing if that box has been there undiscovered for almost a century.
The grotto is well known and visited regularly, if you were going to dig you would dig were they dug.

That is definitely my take, the article doesn't leave much room for doubt.

I think it's tasteless and disgraceful what he does to the genre. He is making everybody look like a fool, himself in the first place.

It was already completely clear that the Mary-Magdalene tomb thing was a set-up from A to Z, including the case of old milk bottles and his so called 'parchments' in poor Frenglish. There is no doubt either about the Loch Ness case. Maybe he thinks 3 times lucky....

hmm indeed, I do not like to make accusations without proof but the evidence (or perhaps lack thereof might be better) is stacking up. The onus is of course on the claimant to back up their claim and the simple answer to that is to reveal the vicinty to the relevant authorities, this hasn't happened as far as I can see. In the meantime negative circumstantial evidence is growing.
It would be good to hear Sandy's, Bill K's and Pat's view on the article given they could be implicated by association.
Like I said a hoaxer initially might not see the potential repercussions - they might just see an opportunity and not think what they might set in motion, obviously having not read Foucault's Pendulum

Yes I see that now, I have re read it again properly.

Andrew must have evidence of this I assume and should therefore post it as any true whistleblower would do under the circumstances. I know there are repercussions regarding naming names, I found that out myself a while ago but there must be some way to prove his point. Also I don’t think its fair to implicate others, he mentions Sandy and Bill and I have stated my case in the past concerning Sandy, she has never at any time done, said or written anything to give the impression that she is in anyway dishonest, we have all gotten to know her over the years and I personally find her down to earth, straight forward and genuine in her passion for the RLC mystery, she has probably studied this more than any of us on here and its not fair to implicate her simply for being his friend. I don’t think I am the only one that thinks that either.

Having said all that, if Ben was a decent bloke he should do the same for them as they do for him and come to his own and there defence on here publicly, or at least make some kind of statement to that effect.

With any luck such hoaxers will have a hell of a time going out in public without being the subjects of constant ridicule and shameful glares, which should be well deserved.

I wonder if the Ethiopian Church gave permission for the sale of the Ark of the Covenant ?

Now I sometimes like to go against the flow but before Mr Hammott/ Wilkinson is pelted with stones, perhaps we should remember some of his genuine research if I can give one example - his access to the Chateau Hautpoul. And bugger it I enjoyed his book.

No, you're not. I totally agree with you, and well done for writing that, because it needed to be said. I believe Sandy to be a person of the utmost integrity, whose contribution to this genre has been immense, as the journal she brought out last year very must attests and which, I would just add, is probably the least agenda-pushing, and most fair and open minded RLC publication I have ever read, with time given to all sides of various debates, and with not a hint of dissembling or pretence about knowing the answers.

As to the rest of it, my faith in the Hammott tomb find has long been eroded since the days when I defended it so vigourously, which I now have to live with, but I don't know anything about these other matters, and don't want to get into discussing them, because they're serious allegations with legal ramifications, and this is a forum, not a court room. One would take anything Andrew wrote with great seriousness and respect, and I'm sure the locked post that kicked this off was not written lightly, or without regard to the consequences, and I have no doubt at all with noble and decent intentions to get to the truth and retain some integrity within the genre, but we're not privy to a lot of this, and until the whole murky situation is a bit clearer I personally think it's best not to speculate openly about it.

But there should be no aspersions of guilt upon others, merely by association, that is quite wrong.

As eloquent as ever Richard, well said

But there should be no aspersions of guilt upon others, merely by association, that is quite wrong.

I am extremely upset that Andy Gough has seen fit to include my name in an article such as his - associating me with 'hoaxes'. I have asked him to remove my name - he has no right to put my name there in a blurb he is directing at Ben Hammmott regarding 'hoaxes' that have nothing to do with me.

I have nothing to do with the Loch Ness fiasco.

I have nothing to do with the preposterous idea that someone is trying to sell the 'Ark of the Covenant'.

However, the very idea is not so preposterous when you realise that people within the Rennes Group were looking for that very artifact in the RLB area!!!!! How do i know that? Because they sent me an email - which i found simply ridiculous!

And i have nothing to do with a hoaxed tomb in France! Or the bottle notes etc, other than being there when some of the items were found. I NEVER said these items were used at the wedding of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, i have never said the body in the tomb is Mary Magdalene. I am on record as refuting these ideas.

I have of course spoken to Ben. What has been discussed regarding these issues is not for public perusal - but let us just say i am very angry.

If that tomb in France turns out to be a hoax too - i have not been party to that either, or the bottles, parchments - the whole damn thing. I simply trusted Ben.

But, i will say here, to be quite honest, i have hardly met many RLC researchers who are upstanding honest folk with integrity and a real genuine wish to discuss the truth. Like Richard says, they all have agendas, they all think they know the answer, and many of the personalities that are in this Rennes research business are dishonest, to a lesser or higher degree. They say what they think should be said to stay in the loop and to be 'privvy' to information. And to get money. That has been my whole depressing experience.
That is in France as well as England .....and in the USA.

And some of them are used as sources in Andy's article - which is certainly kind of ironic.

But this statement is the last i will make on these assertions. I have never been afraid to confront these issues or say what i feel. I dont tow any party line, and thats more than can be said for others!

So Andy, please take my name out of that article .....or i will see whether i have recourse for damages against you.

Oh, and thank you Tingra and Richard.