Arcadia Discussion Zone

Oh my god Paul, see why you cannot be taken seriously? Is it hard to reformulate the question, to give it another form, to express it differently? It is extremely annoying and also it is clear that if you continue this way, you give the best opportunity for changing the subject. If you killed the subject, do you have the impression you obtained any result? Or maybe killing topics is exactly your intention. Weird job.

You don't really know if the property is private or government owned, do you? If it is government land then your conclusion is a non sequitur.

Such as M Norton, Leo Vinci, Figerados.....

so you hope.

The needle's stuck...

Neither premise answers the questions, either.

A fact.

It appears that those involved are too subdued to answer these questions:


1)- Who is the Landowner where the tomb is situated

2)- Which people from DRAC provided permission for non-archaeologists to contaminate the site, and officially allow artefacts to be taken away and transported to different countries?

"Who is the Landowner where the tomb is situated ... Who is the Landowner where the tomb is situated...Who is the Landowner where the tomb is situated....."

That's right - the opposite to honesty is dishonesty.

You don't need to be "involved" to answer those questions, because the answers are blindingly obvious.

Team Hammott aren't going to identify the landowner, for the perfectly good reason that to do so would be to give away the location of the tomb.

Nobody from DRAC provided permission for the site to be "contaminated", because Ben only made contact with them subsequent to his filming the tomb.

So there you go. You never need to ask those questions ever again.

Not good enough! Serious flaw in understanding of French Law!
It does, however, illustrate Richard Webster's serious belief in piffle!

So you think somebody would have entombed a person of apparently high stature and their treasures on government property? That would be a little risky, wouldn't it? If it was a Templar tomb then the Templars would have made sure they had full control of the site, would they not? If the tomb is real, it must have been a rather extensive project to carry out. That wouldn't have been possible on public property. I don't think there are any national parks in that region, so it's doubtful that the land was seized by the government for that purpose at some time after the tomb was built and I don't think a freeway was built through it either.

I suppose you could say that, in theory, if it was a Templar tomb then the land could have been seized after the arrest of the Templars in 1307, but I still don't think you could conclude that it is now on public property because in Ben's statement about the alleged DRAC inspection of the site he said that they determined who the owner was. If it was public property he wouldn't have phrased it that way. Of course, after the 17 Questions article in which Ben stated that he had plugged up the hole with foam again, we now know that he must have been less than truthful when he said that the DRAC folks looked down the hole and saw the tomb.

To replicate your format of questioning...

1. Do YOU have a document stating that DRAC have no interest in the matter?

or

2. Are you saying that your perceived silence from DRAC is proof of their lack of interest being a fact?

Yes I did pay attention and I asked for proof and I repeat that if anyone has any of this film footage which would prove that the cave was previously extensively searched then please post it. Hearsay is NOT evidence.

VAM

Where is the "serious flaw" in understanding of French law in Richard's post?

Where did Ben say that the DRAC looked down the hole to see the tomb?

VAM

STILL AVOIDING answering the questions:

1)- Who is the Landowner where the tomb is situated

2)- Which people from DRAC provided permission for non-archaeologists to contaminate the site, and officially allow artefacts to be taken away and transported to different countries?

Are you asking these questions of a particular person or persons, because Richard has already answered them adequately. As he says, you don't have to be part of "Team Hammott" - it's all quite logical...

Richard's "answer" was a hoot - indicating how ignorant he is of French Law!

DRAC do not need "permission" from any Landowner to carry out excavations - they just get the necessary permission from the Government to present to the Landowner!

Only Professional Archaeologists are allowed to conduct archaeological excavations - anyone else caught doing such a thing would get arrested.

Not only has this happened - where an "archaeological site" has been contaminated by non-archaeologists - but various artefacts have been removed and taken to different countries - none of this is allowed without the official permission of DRAC - and it has to be carried out by professional archaeologists - not by "five go mad in Rennes-le-Chateau".
Which is how everything is presented.

The whole thing is bullshit.
From beginning to end.
Ask any professional archaeologist.

And you only need to take one look at the stage-managed "relics" to see it's nothing but a VERY BAD fake...like I said before - Andrew Collins did similar things to this during the 1980s. It's all been done before!

Leo,

On page 2 of this thread jb1717 asked, "Where's the statement from the landowner that he will allow the excavation of a tomb on his land?" etc. I then asked, is that right? What is the law on that? You then referred me to the DRAC website, some of which I have read, but didn't find the bit relevant to whether permission is needed from the landowner.

It would surprise me if the government needed permission of the landowner to excavate and, indeed, you say that they don't. But Richard has said, "Question. If the land in which the cave is situated is privately owned, then why should the owner need anyone's permission to excavate upon it? Irrespective of what may or may not be in that cave, I would have thought, or hoped perhaps, that the rights of the property holder would be sacrosanct, meaning that the owner would be perfectly entitled to either deny permisson - to DRAC or anyone else - to dig upon their land, or conversely to grant such permission."

Could you please confirm for me:

1. In France, the government does not need a landowner's permission to carry out excavations on the landowner's land;

2. Is there a particular section on the DRAC website which sets this out?

3. That a landowner does not need DRAC's permission to carry out archaeological excavations on their own land.

Many thanks

That's right, DRAC go to the Landowner to carry out excavations.
The Landowner cannot stop DRAC from doing that.
If the nature of the discovery relates to historic importance.
The exact same Law exists in the United Kingdom.

http://www.archeodroit.net/

Here's Ben's statement. It doesn't sound like a description of public land;

"After consulting a detailed map they told us who owned the land."

Here's a quote which sounds like DRAC looked down the tomb hole, which Ben told Andrew was plugged with foam. The foam must have been put there after the Bloodline footage was done and before the DRAC inspection because Ben didn't say anything about putting the foam in during the DRAC inspection and presumably that's the last time he was there.

"I took them inside the cave being careful not to disturb the bushes around the entrance too much, and showed them where the shaft was that I had filmed through and what I thought was the direction of the original entrance
After examining the interior we all returned outside where they examined the surrounding rock formation "

I don't see anything there about taking half an hour to pick out the foam and then examining the interior and then putting new foam in again. Of course, why even put foam in the hole when it's deep inside a cave anyway? Is it going to rain inside the cave? What exactly is the purpose of the foam? It certainly wouldn't keep people out. It would make them curious about what the heck foam is doing in a cave. Was it supposed to keep animals out? The strange thing is that the films didn't show any animal skeletons in there. Surely a rat or two would have fallen down there and been entombed forever.

Let's face it, if this really was the real deal, the Ministre d’État, chargé des Affaires culturelles, would have acted officially in relation to the matter long ago!