Ark of the covenant

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 996

Aprositus Nesos wrote:

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.

That's then even more reason to have the site opened surely? IF an expert expressed an opinion that the body was real, then at what stage was that, and shouldn't some official body have been brought in then as for all anyone knew, they could have been looking at a crime scene (as it turned out to be, but not the crime you may have thought ;-)

). That is my point. If say the expert said '...yes it is a body...' in 2010 (or whenever), then at that point don't you chase DRAC or the police like mad to get something done? Nobody seems to have done anything - no vetting of the location pre-release, no chase up post release.

Davinho · **Joined:** 26 Jan 2010 10:58 am **Posts:** 1812

Quote:

Aprositus Nesos wrote:
lcremote wrote:
Aprositus Nesos wrote:
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.

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?

WTF?
anyone else confused about this, like me?

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2012 4:57 pm

Tertius wrote:

Thomas D. wrote:

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

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.

Ooooh, I love it when you insult me in French Roger, makes you seem so sophisticated!!!! :lol:

Are you involving yourself in this thread purely to abuse me?
Its almost like having a french stalker and all I get is the scent of stale Gauloises and your unlaundered trench coat!
How frightfully 'Filme noire' this all is. :shock:

You must explain why, after posting in English for over 100 posts you have taken to only posting in French now on this Anglophone Forum.
Would it be possible for you to ring the changes and do some in Italian too? That would be great!

If you were after a modicum of respectability you might well enquire of Paul why he chose to place that info,
unbidden, in the public domaine?

TTFN,

TD/UU :lol:

Aprositus Nesos · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2012 4:59 pm

Thomas D. wrote:

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

Yes, certainly they probably were hoping to score big with the film and the find.

As for the complexity, it has more to do with the history of the story than Wilkinson's intelligence, per se. That history is complex indeed - many trips to RLC, countless lies by Wilkinson, endless deceptions, books written, articles posted, etc., etc.

I should have been clearer. My apologies.

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2012 5:01 pm

Davinho wrote:

Quote:

Aprositus Nesos wrote:
lcremote wrote:
Aprositus Nesos wrote:
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.

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?

WTF?
anyone else confused about this, like me?

Time for a libation me thinks, after which it'll be much clearer!
I bet you wish you had stalker dressed in a purple trenchcoat!

TD

Tertius · **Joined:** 12 Sep 2011 11:17 pm **Posts:** 412

jlockest wrote:

then at that point don't you chase DRAC or the police like mad to get something done? Nobody seems to have done anything - no vetting of the location pre-release, no chase up post release.

Bruce Burgess a contacte la DRAC plusieures fois, et il s'est fait dire (evidemment) qu'il s'agissait d'une fraude.

Il aurait donc ete inutile d'insister.

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 996

fmh999 wrote:

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.....

If you were the responsible for the film (which presumably Bruce was - the hoax was Ben's, the film and it's contents weren't), then wouldn't that alone ring alarm bells? Why tell DRAC and then refuse to show them? There was a body. This isn't just a case of inanimate objects. It was believed to be the resting place of a unknown dead human being - of unknown age and origin. As I said, If I had seen Ben at al attempting to open a 'treasure' (the bottle opening appeared in the Bloodline film didn't it and was made by Bruce?), then I don't think I would have then trusted Ben to get samples of parchment and hair or skin or whatever for forensic testing - would you?

Davinho · **Joined:** 26 Jan 2010 10:58 am **Posts:** 1812

Quote:

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.

why would you think he took photos of the construction? I certainly wouldn't.
If I remember rightly the filming in the cave when he uncovered the body was cut between 2 tapes. One we now know was pre-recorded and swapped when Bruce was out of sight. This is used for the filming of the remote camera. The other section of film is from Ben's own camera he used to film the perspective of himactually filming with the remote. Now, I don't remember him filming himself in that cave unearthing the supposed shaft and dropping the remote cam in, I may be wrong but if not he could pick any cave (and there are many) and just dig a insubstantial hole which he would then backfill and if he had to show someone he could show them this. If no one has seen him stick a camera down a shaft in a cave why did he take a constructed shaft which he says was heavy all the way to France? Have I missed something.

Davinho · **Joined:** 26 Jan 2010 10:58 am **Posts:** 1812

Quote:

Time for a libation me thinks

I'd prefer a pint of Becks, please

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Tertius wrote:

Thomas D. wrote:

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

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.

Roger, Merde

lcremote · **Joined:** 15 May 2008 6:00 pm **Posts:** 375

Quote:

Aprositus Nesos wrote:
lcremote wrote:
Aprositus Nesos wrote:
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.

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?

Whaa!?! Who are you quoting now? Who wrote all this, Aprositus Nesos or me? If you are talking to me, Aprositus Nesos, it is you who has chosen to believe a known liar, not me. I choose to believe the liar who is lying now but was not lying before and was, therefore, not a known liar. My chosen liar was telling the truth, and still is (except for the recent lie about lying).

TCP · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2012 5:13 pm

Aprositus Nesos wrote:

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.

But hold on a second - weren't calls placed to DRAC by some of our fellow travelers here (I believe Corjan said he contacted them himself) to either confirm or refute the details? And wasn't the result a confirmation of the initial visit to the agency, the statement of the agent, and the fellow's subsequent firing?

TCP

Davinho · **Joined:** 26 Jan 2010 10:58 am **Posts:** 1812

Quote:

Whaa!?! Who are you quoting now? Who wrote all this, Aprositus Nesos or me? If you are talking to me, Aprositus Nesos, it is you who has chosen to believe a known liar, not me. I choose to believe the liar who is lying now but was not lying before and was, therefore, not a known liar. My chosen liar was telling the truth, and still is (except for the recent lie about lying).

dude, you appear to be quite mad

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 996

Tertius wrote:

jlockest wrote:

then at that point don't you chase DRAC or the police like mad to get something done? Nobody seems to have done anything - no vetting of the location pre-release, no chase up post release.

Bruce Burgess a contacte la DRAC plusieures fois, et il s'est fait dire (evidemment) qu'il s'agissait d'une fraude.

Il aurait donc ete inutile d'insister.

As I said I don't know the characters here or their 'vested' interests (and my French is all but non existent) - but if the Google translation of the above is correct:
'...Bruce Burgess has contacted the DRAC several times, and he was told (of course) that it was a fraud.

It would have been useless to insist....

Then it was known that it was a fraud already? So what is all the fuss about?

Pilrig · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2012 5:15 pm

lcremote wrote:

Aprositus Nesos wrote:

Hmmm, I wonder if the villagers have a few pitchforks stashed away?

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

And keeping stoom about their own tunnels..... :wink:

TCP · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2012 5:16 pm

richard.webster wrote:

jlockest wrote:

I can't believe that no one was interested in the discovery of a potential body.

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.

Perhaps somebody would have, had there actually been an unidentified body found there.

TCP

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

lcremote wrote:

Quote:

Aprositus Nesos wrote:
lcremote wrote:
Aprositus Nesos wrote:
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.

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?

Whaa!?! Who are you quoting now? Who wrote all this, Aprositus Nesos or me? If you are talking to me, Aprositus Nesos, it is you who has chosen to believe a known liar, not me. I choose to believe the liar who is lying now but was not lying before and was, therefore, not a known liar. My chosen liar was telling the truth, and still is (except for the recent lie about lying).

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2012 5:18 pm

Aprositus Nesos wrote:

Thomas D. wrote:

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

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.

Well, that's lovely. you're extending to Sandy the same kind of unquestioning support she did to Ben for over a decade.
I'm sure that I'm not alone in hoping that you won't be let down in the same way!
Can you imagine the fall out if it transpires that hers were the other pair of hands directing the stanley knife? :shock:

As was suggested, you might be overplaying your hand. If your attempts to demonise him continue he might lose the vestigal remains of his loyalty to her and start muddying the waters.
We don't need you to keep pointing out what a pillock he has been, we get it.
A little expression of regret from Sandy at some of her more intemperate outbursts might go some way to mollify the situation,
TD :wink:

Tertius · **Joined:** 12 Sep 2011 11:17 pm **Posts:** 412

jlockest wrote:

Then it was known that it was a fraud already? So what is all the fuss about?

Oui, exactement. Le "fuss", ce sont simplement des reglements de comptes entre ouistitis du forum.

jlockest · **Joined:** 13 Aug 2010 5:37 pm **Posts:** 996

TCP wrote:

Aprositus Nesos wrote:

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.

But hold on a second - weren't calls placed to DRAC by some of our fellow travelers here (I believe Corjan said he contacted them himself) to either confirm or refute the details? And wasn't the result a confirmation of the initial visit to the agency, the statement of the agent, and the fellow's subsequent firing?

TCP

Tim,
So you were under the impression that DRAC had been contacted and told that a body had been found? And DRAC confirmed that - and still (up until this very minute) have done nothing to check the location of the body?

Edited: ...or as Tertius posts, all this was known to be a fraud anyway?

Quote:

Oui, exactement. Le "fuss", ce sont simplement des reglements de comptes entre ouistitis du forum.

'.....Yes, exactly. The "fuss", they are simply regulations of accounts between marmosets forum.....'

I get more confused by each post.

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Tertius wrote:

jlockest wrote:

then at that point don't you chase DRAC or the police like mad to get something done? Nobody seems to have done anything - no vetting of the location pre-release, no chase up post release.

Bruce Burgess a contacte la DRAC plusieures fois, et il s'est fait dire (evidemment) qu'il s'agissait d'une fraude.

Il aurait donc ete inutile d'insister.

Roger, Merde

Pilrig · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2012 5:21 pm

Tertius wrote:

Thomas D. wrote:

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

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.

Mon Dieu ! or in Glaswegian...Geeza Break !

Pilrig · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2012 5:23 pm

Davinho wrote:

Quote:

Aprositus Nesos wrote:
lcremote wrote:
Aprositus Nesos wrote:
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.

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?

WTF?
anyone else confused about this, like me?

It's getting like a soap opera...body under the patio, anyone ? :lol:

tingra · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2012 5:24 pm

Spartacus Paraclete wrote:

Roger, Merde

According to google translate Merde means shit :shock:

Are you calling Roger a shit Sparticus?

Pilrig · **Posted:** 22 Mar 2012 5:24 pm

Tertius wrote:

jlockest wrote:

then at that point don't you chase DRAC or the police like mad to get something done? Nobody seems to have done anything - no vetting of the location pre-release, no chase up post release.

Bruce Burgess a contacte la DRAC plusieures fois, et il s'est fait dire (evidemment) qu'il s'agissait d'une fraude.

Il aurait donc ete inutile d'insister.

He's lost his Franco-English dictionary !

Arcadia Discussion Zone

Ark of the covenant

Who is online