|
Recently I watched the "feature pseudo-documentary,"
including all bonus features, Bloodline. In a nutshell
the documentary presents a series of interrelated claims
like the existence of Jesus' and Mary Magdalene's offspring;
the protection of this bloodline by the 12th century, still
existing and very powerful secret society the Priory of
Sion (the real mover behind the Templars); and its coming
out of hiding through its recent grand master Pierre Plantard.
Central to the story is also the Roman Catholic priest,
Bérenger Saunière, who found around the turn
of the 19th century evidence of the whole lineage hidden
in his church in Rennes-le-Chateau. He became subsequently
very rich and left curious clues of his knowledge for later
generations to find. Burgess did interviews with self-declared
representatives of the Priory, Gino Sandri and Nicolas Haywood,
who were so kind to corroborate many of the astounding claims.
Burgess was also to meet a British Lord to receive important
additional information, but the chap suspiciously died a
few days before the meeting would take place. Burgess then
buddies up with a British treasure-hunter, Ben Hammot, and
together, following Saunière's clues left in little
bottles, find very suggestive evidence in a tomb close to
Rennes-le-Chateau with possibly Mary Magdalene's remains.
Hammot provides some footage of the inside of the tomb,
though it's not really clear when and where the footage
was taken. It has a mummy draped in something resembling
a Templar tunic. They take a hair sample and have it analyzed
by a professional laboratory and present the results indicating
a middle-eastern origin.
Before giving my own interpretation, it looks that reviews
of the film range between Paul Smith's debunking two-liner
and Rob Humanick's enthusiastic assessment. Paul Smith described
the documentary as an "[a]ssortment of pseudo-historical
claims, hoax treasure discoveries and motley crew of charlatans.
Totally uncritical 'documentary' giving the doubt to the
extremely ludicrous." (1) Rob Humanick
stated that "[c]oncrete or not, however, the physical
evidence of his [Jesus'] bloodline as shown here is awesomely
compelling, from interviews with individuals claiming intimate
knowledge on the Priory of Sion--the organization rumored
to have long protected the secrets of Jesus' life as covered
up by the Catholic Church--to an extended exploration of
a French tomb that contains what may very well be the mummified
remains of Mary Magdalene." (2)
There seem to be at least three ways to deal with the whole
Priory of Sion / Rennes-le-Chateau / Jesus' bloodline issue:
1) You want the truth and you become a researcher. Initially
you might get stuck as there are just too many vague hypotheses
and obscure details, which are beyond corroboration. Probably
somewhere down the road you'll have to conclude it's all
a little smelly and hoaxy and will have to categorize the
whole story as a big prank, or more accurately, an accumulation
of hoaxes.
2) Or, you know it is a hoax and under the pretense of serious
research, you add your own plausible fantasies and fabrications,
just for fun and/or monetary gain.
3) Or, as above, you know it is a hoax, but your own plausible
additions are such that the story becomes intentionally
self-exposing and self-refuting.
It is possible that Bloodline falls in the third
category. The most indicative piece of evidence for that
allegation is the fact that Bloodline director Bruce
Burgess tells his audience that the mummy found in the tomb
"has a unique Middle Eastern DNA profile," while
the laboratory to which he provided a hair sample came to
the conclusion that the "profile, when analyzed, is
from a Caucasian heritage in northwestern Europe."
The full quote from the report by Paleo-DNA Laboratory in
Canada runs thus:
The above profile, when analyzed, is from a Caucasian
heritage in northwestern Europe. Strong evidence indicates
Haplogroup I. Haplogroup I polymorphisms are thought to
have arisen as far back as 50,000 years ago. The Foremother
is thought to be "Iris" and could have lived
approximately 43,000 years ago possibly in the Northern
Middle East. This population spread to Europe early and
can currently be found throughout the Mediterranean and
Europe, but concentrated in areas such as the periphery
of Europe, Finland, Western UK and their islands. In Europe
the frequency of this haplotype is quite low at 4%.
When Burgess and Barnett show the DNA-report from the laboratory
on camera he superimposed the following quote:
"Strong evidence indicates Haplogroup I which originated
approximately 43,000 years ago in the Middle East."
There are some problems here. First, this is not a quote,
but a paraphrase. Second, it looks like tweaking the actual
conclusion of the report towards his gross misrepresentation
of saying later that the corps "has a unique Middle
Eastern DNA profile." Third, it doesn't prove anything
as most Europeans have ancestors, if you go back enough,
in the Middle East. I do, and so do most Europeans.
This dichotomy between the report and Burgess' use of it
is quite disturbing and revealing. Is Burgess so stupid
he cannot even interpret the research he commissioned? Or
is he so desirous to make his point that he is overlooking
the evidence and just reads what conforms to his belief?
But he presents himself as a serious researcher, which status
he seems to be effectively undermining. Or he knows what
he is doing and, for whatever reason, intentionally misrepresents
the research. So, he is either stupid or is intentionally
misrepresenting the DNA findings. In either case it does
severely taint the rest of the documentary. But why make
such an egregious misrepresentation by including the documentary
evidence for its refutation as a bonus feature? Maybe he
thinks we are the stupid ones.
There are other facts, which have meanwhile been established,
which he conveniently omits from the documentary.
1) No mention of the fact that the parchments allegedly
found by Rennes-le-Chateau priest Saunière were actual
fakes, admittedly created by Pierre Plantard and two of
his friends, Philippe de Chérisey and Gérard
de Sède.
2) No mention that the messages found by Hammot in the
bottles were in very bad French with phrases patterned on
English grammar.
3) No mention that the Priory of Sion was a 1956 creation
of Plantard and that he was a hoaxer of humble origins,
building upon previous myths and regarded by the authorities
as a 'fantasist.'
4) No mention that Gino Sandri, who pretends to be the
secretary-general of the Priory, also admits that the parchments
were faked (allegedly to protect more important real documents).
5) Burgess presents Plantard as believing he is a descendant
of Jesus, which he never did. He actually repudiated that
claim and 'only' claimed to be the rightful inheritor of
the Merovingian throne and therefore to be the real king
of France. The Jesus bloodline angle was added to the Sauniere-Plantard
story in 1982 by the writers of Holy Blood, Holy Grail,
who probably knew they were peddling a tenuous hypothesis
and possibly were in the possession of evidence undermining,
if not refuting, their story.
6) And no mention of one of the best studies to date: Bill
Putnam's and John Edwin Wood's The Treasure of Rennes-le-Château,
A Mystery Solved. Published in 2003 this book should
have been in Burgess' hands and guiding him through his
research to see all the pitfalls, pranks and hoaxes which
have accumulated over a period of more than 50 years. Instead
he is travelling around with Baigent &co.'s discredited
Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Why is Burgess doing all of this shoddy work? It's so bad
that it looks like he intentionally is setting himself up
to be completely refuted and discredited. He might make
a buck and get some acclaim in the process, but at what
cost?
Of course the tomb and mummy found by Hammot have to be
investigated by regular French archeologists. Burgess claims
to have gotten them involved, but another researcher checked
that and came to the opposite conclusion:
"DRAC, who would normally go to the site of an
important discovery on the same day, did not create a
dossier since no-one never saw the tomb or any photo or
map of it. No word has been heard from Bruce or Ben since,
strongly suggesting they only came in to get a quote they
could use for the film, leaving DRAC embarrassed, angry
and convinced this is a hoax." (3)
I'm sure we'll hear from Sandri or Haywood that the French
authorities are playing politics and are under heavy pressure
from elements in the Vatican or another very powerful secret
society not to proceed investigating this. Remember, the
stakes are very high as the whole history of Christianity
might have to be re-written! I advise the Priory to find
the name of the most recently deceased DRAC employee and
spin a nice thriller around him with the allegation that
this person wanted to open a dossier on the Hammot find
and then suspiciously died. This would be a classic Plantard
trick, which he pulled off at least four times, the last
of which led to his complete exposure and undoing when he
claimed that a then recently deceased businessman, Roger-Patrice
Pelat, had been Grand Master of the Priory. Plantard had
bad luck, because a French judge investigating Pelat for
insider trading had Plantard's house searched and found
a treasure-trove of fabricated documents. (4)
Burgess also used the trick with good dramatic effects with
the death of Lord Lichfield by claiming he was to meet him
to receive important information and then the lord suddenly
died.
Therefore you have to wonder: Did Hammot create the tomb
and put in there a mummy and other items (probably somewhere
in the UK to stay outside French jurisdiction) and fabricated
and hid the badly written bottled messages? Or did someone
else do all that and just led Hammot and Burgess by the
nose with little clues here and there? After all, Plantard
and friends went through great efforts to build up their
hoax and successfully deceived Baigent &co. at least
for a while. Did others, like Sandri and Haywood, independently
continue? Or is there something more concerted behind this
elaborate prank that would connect Plantard, de Chérisey,
de Sède, Lincoln, Leigh, Baigent, Sandri, Haywood,
Hammot, Burgess and Barnett on a deeper level? There is
always room for a conspiracy behind a conspiracy.
Anyway, if ever you want to pull off a good hoax, study
Plantard and all the others who jumped on the wagon including
Burgess and Barnett. Or just enjoy a good story regardless
of its truth. I enjoyed the acting of Sandri and Haywood
and the nice shots of Rennes-le-Chateau and its environment.
Govert Schuller
Wheaton
October 11, 2009
Endnotes
1) Paul Smith "Da
Vinci Code Documentaries" (accessed October 10,
2009)
2) Review
for Slant Magazine (accessed October 10, 2009). The reviewer
leaves the possibility open for the film to be "an
amazingly constructed hoax."
3) Comment originally found in April 2009
on rlcresearch.com
(Comment withdrawn)
4)See the Pelat
Affair
Some background sources:
Priory
of Sion on Wikipedia
Bill Putnam, John Edwin Wood, The
Treasure of Rennes-le-Château, A Mystery Solved
Database
relating to the matters of Priory of Sion
Dan
Brown - Was Lord Lichfield Killed over Da Vinci Code Secret?
For more on Haplogroup
I see National Geographic
|
