Arcadia Discussion Zone

Roscoe, you have hurt my feelings. And this from one of the few people who recognize the importance of Lincoln's 'The Holy Place'.

That does it. It's time for a well chosen emoticon to put you in your place. But not the eye-rolly one. I've seen that one too often lately.

I am aware.

Lincoln re-visits the incident in his recent radio interview.

TBH I think the is the confession is a hoax thing is a load of bollox. I reckon Icremont is at the lash (as we say up here). Further, Ben/Bill's problem is that he's admitted telling porkies and as such his credibility is next to zero. A shame cos the baby (his research eg Chateau Hautpoul) has been thrown oot with the Mary Magdalene bathwater.

But you wrote that HL had excavated prior to the publication of The Holy Place in 1990 whereas the Kersey/Chronicles incident took place in 1973/74.

Hold on Pilrig, are you saying that you think lcremote's Confession-Hoax Theory is a hoax?

These are two separate incidents. It is Roscoe who is equating the two.

Lincoln made one statement or gave one key word that is of main importance: Lunel.

Ahhh yes
Lunel is the only town in France founded by Jews who were established before the Roman conquest and an ancient synagogue may be seen there.

Lunel was a centre of Jewish learning.



Notice the star

Stevie Wonder would see the hoax.

What about it?

Doesn't look Jewish.


Lunel -> lune -> moon -> crest?

Why? Looks islamic?

Indeed. For some classic JB, scroll down near the bottom to re-read JB berating Ben Hammott's mother!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1067&start=50

Bill/Ben's wife actually.

I was connecting the star with Henry Lincoln's research in the geometry of the area in a shape of a star

Good point Hot spur

it is Venus sitting on top of the crescent Moon
http://youtu.be/w3KLwDn2_Gs

The star is Venus, a.k.a. Ishtar, Inanna, Aphrodite, or Semiramis. She is the Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Semitic
Astarte.

Recently, however, archaeologists and biblical critics have revealed a far more complicated picture of how biblical Israelites lived their religious lives. As exhaustively summarized in William Dever’s “Did God Have a Wife? Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel,” most scholars now believe that the ancient Israelite world was far less monolithic, and monotheistic, than the Bible suggests. Household shrines, statuettes of male and female figures, and inscriptions and carvings describing “YHVH and His Asherah” all point to a decentralized biblical religion that was practiced largely within family structures, and well beyond the strictures of Jerusalem’s orthodox elite.

While “the Goddess” has long been in hiding in such coded symbols, today She is, as it were, coming out of the closet, appearing in everything from feminine God(dess) language to “priestess training programs” in both Israel and the United States. Folklorist Taya Shere, a co-leader of one such program, says that she is merely recapturing an ancient, lost and more balanced Jewish religion. “Judaism came from somewhere, and it is comforting for me to be aware of its roots,” she said. “Even the challah loaves come from the holy cakes baked for Astarte.”

I do have to say one thing
I'm a bit disappointed in DRAC
in not coming out publicly revealing that there was no tomb

or did they and I missed the Memo

The impetus was never on DRAC to prove it. Interfering and impeaching a public department is also considered a crime.
Maybe they should consider prosecutorial measures - and while they are at it, they can always question you as to why you supplied photo's for his book, becoming an accessory to the fact.

Although I must say, I don't think "missing the memo" is a very good defence strategy, you may want to rethink that approach.

Ah... the good old days!

VAM

Oh my
Rain are you accusing me of a crime? I allowed him to use a photograph I took in New Orleans...is that a crime?
If you are a accusing me let me know what the crime is allowing a author to use a photo that I took.

You just accused me of "becoming an accessory to the fact"

If I am a criminal by your idea of the law ....then Oxford is a criminal for giving results to the Bigou parchment
and the University for giving DNA results to a hair etc.... etc... that were in the movie and his book

If DRAC wants to question me please tell them to give me a call. I would love to talk to them.

Lovuian, you are a much older lady then I am - a mature lady that talks like a teenager. So I'm not really impressed.
This case isn't your playground to make accusations against public departments and interfere with the judicial process.

So have you finished your rant? What does it feel like to defend yourself against unfounded accusations and be put in the position that you are putting others in?
i.e. How did B.Wilk know to ask you for the photo? Why offer an initial post that is tantamount to a disclaimer? Why did you previously prevaricate on publically available knowledge from Nicolas Haywood?


Oh and by the way DRAC wouldn't be investigating they would pass it on to be investigated by an external entity.
Maybe you should consider there are bigger forces at play here.

That was a long time ago...I had Bruce on My Space - I read Lovuian`s article and

saw the window of the Templar shroud. I wrote to Bruce about it and he told Ben who

contacted Lov. and then published her photo in his book. I thought you were from the Viet Nam

war era Rain, Lovuian is a younger woman. Does DRAC excavate at all up there?

I'm not from the war but my family was - I'm from after - Lovuian is a much older woman that should know better.

So how much contact did you have with Bruce and Ben, Renne? That explains why you seemed quite upset when B.W. confessed.
That's very interesting, anything else you want to divulge?

That was the extent of it Rain. I miss JB1717, always

nice to hear from Ben`s mom.....


"In France those remains are state property, not church property." - TCP

does this refer to all tombs in France?

It was nice to hear from Ben's mum.

- Renne, that was Ben's wife (VAM) not his mummy although I made that mistake at first too. I think a lot of people did.

What bigger forces? Do I get a chance to be at the French jail? French cooking and free medical care for an old lady
That doesn't sound so bad to me

It takes a special kind of person to ignore the suffering of others and make light of situation that holds a lot of gravitas, I believe. I guess I was moved when Renne B. questioned Ben as to the people that spent their hard earned money in the scheme. I also have compassion for the innocent people that are embarrassed and made to look like fools. I guess that's one of the pitfalls of having a conscience.
It's obviously something you don't understand because you lack one - maybe you can crack another joke about it, make yourself feel better.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I don't think Oxford or the University or anybody else etc... etc.. had any part in Ben's Hoax ....he came out and gave his confession
They are not "accessory to the fact" just like I'm not "accessory to the fact"
I'm not accusing anybody


So nobody gets the wrong impression
Rain's idea of the law is different from mine

The Movie Bloodline was already out when I noticed the white sheet with the cross over what looked like a box being carried by the Crusaders in a stained glass window in New Orleans looked similar to tomb and posted the pictures here
Ben saw it and asked to use it. I saw no reason why not as far as I knew the tomb was real.

and I didn't accuse DRAC of anything
just I wish we could have gotten an official reply and I even asked if I missed the memo

I think Rain you jumped to conclusion on what an "accessory of the fact is"

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.