The examination is to an extent about their personal qualities in so much that you question thier ability to recognize a fake hence casting light upon their personal qualities of being able to judge character etc. Perhaps thier reasons for not wishing to discuss Hansard with you or anyone else is simply that they did gain a measure of help from his teachings whether properly promoted or gained by Hansard. There still remains some within what he was teaching that was beneficial to many and while the man himself is contemptable that does not make everything he taught contemptable. He has misrepresented himself but he has also fooled many with his acting.

I have to agree with you James that Suzanne, Steve and many others are victims who have been taken for a ride and as such should be given our sympathies not contempt.

James.. curiousity... were you at the retreat on Thunder Island a few years ago? Am trying to remember who you are lol.

It appears that the aforementioned individuals do not believe the DurCon proposition. And I would remind readers that beyond revealing the facts of dodgy marketing and numerous examples of misrepresentation, DurCon itself is only a proposition.

Those individuals based on their own experience, have concluded that Mr. Hansard brought something of genuine value to them. Do they and their opinions and the research they may have done somehow count less simply because it is not announced over the internet?

I would also remind readers that oral traditions of all kinds are oral for a good reason. They can never be proved or disproved, and that is the way some people like it, while others are left to fume and fuss over it.

These individuals have chosen to judge Mr. Hansard on his works and the work they saw was deemed good.

Who are we to pass judgement on thier point of view?

So please identify the sources of this supposed oral tradition, which CON-veniently, exists only within the deceiving imagination of Christopher Hansard. Unless of course you can furnish us contact details of the fabulous 'Urgyen Namchuk', or his family, since 'he' is credited to be the [i:e64a635541]Master of Dur Con's[/i:e64a635541] 'teacher'. One presumes this 'tradition' is still being practised, and flourishes among the so-called gNam tribe, in Amdo, Tibet? Curious how no Amdo Tibetan I have spoken with about this matter has any idea whatsoever about [i:e64a635541]Dur-Con [/i:e64a635541]or this supposed 'tribe'.

Hansard made the claims now it is up to him, and his dwindling band of acolytes, to provide hard convincing evidence that his 'tradition' was indeed genuine.

In reality, when deciding whether or not they got any value from Mr. Hansard, most people probably put low on their list of criteria: did Amchuk of Amdo really exist? Most people are interested in the question: what can you do for me? Then, as mature people, they decide for themselves whether they got what they want or need. Thus, to suggest that supporters or attendees of readers were conned because Amchuk is a fabrication is to beat a drum that many people won't be hearing.

My grade twelve math teacher taught me vedic maths. If I go out and teach people vedic math do they really care if my grade 12 teacher existed or not? Or are they mainly interested in what I'm teaching them?

If the DurCon hymn causes Hansard to clean up his representation of himself then good, but lets keep its importance in prespective.

The Dur-Con hoax lay at the heart of Hansard's deception, there was no oral tradition, just a cynical and self-driven mind, that exploited those willing to believe the myth. If on the other hand you have objective and convincing information that proves Hansard was indeed following a genuine and ancient tradition please do provide details.

Sorry to disturb your train of thought Gondolf but we are talking about Christopher Hansard here. He’s the one who claims an extraordinary training in medicine and charges a lot of money to sick people for access to his medicine. He’s the one who makes a habit of sexually abusing women under the guise of teaching and/or treating them.

Which part of his representation of himself would you suggest he clean up?

"The Dur-Con hoax lay at the heart of Hansard's deception, there was no oral tradition, just a cynical and self-driven mind, that exploited those willing to believe the myth. If on the other hand you have objective and convincing information that proves Hansard was indeed following a genuine and ancient tradition please do provide details."

That's your story and I see you are sticking with it. If you actually talk to a lot of people who read his books and have attended his workshops you will find that the vast majority attended or read because they found it all interesting or helpful in some way. The marketing may well have attracted them, or not. But to suggest that the marketing was all there was is too belittle the intelligence of thousands of people.

As for whether or not Hansard was following a genuine or ancient tradition, that is only a crime in the DurCon court, presided over by you know who. Frankly I don't give a f**k. Research and reworking and presenting anew, if that is what he did, is perfectly legitimate.

Unless you reveal more of your motivation, and your personal experience of Hansard, I will only be left with the notion that you want to destroy him for your own self satisfaction and you are willing to manipulate the pain and confusion of others in order to do that.

"Sorry to disturb your train of thought Gondolf but we are talking about Christopher Hansard here. He’s the one who claims an extraordinary training in medicine and charges a lot of money to sick people for access to his medicine. He’s the one who makes a habit of sexually abusing women under the guise of teaching and/or treating them.
Which part of his representation of himself would you suggest he clean up?"

If he can't do what he does within an ethical framework he should not be allowed to do what he does, that is true. However, condemning him because of myth making is ridiculous. If we were to apply the same rule to everyone else in our economy you would have a list of individuals, companies and products that stretch from London to New York and back, twice. And there would be no advertising industry.

There was indeed marketing, ask Miss Charlotte Pulver she was very active in promoting [i:5e1e98a036]Dur-Con[/i:5e1e98a036], as evidenced by the fact that not only was she apparently the administrator of his website, but cheques to meet payments to Hansard's UK 'workshops' were payable to 'Charlotte Pulver Promotions'.

Apart from the self-serving promotion, there was also fabrication, deceipt, manipulation, exploitation, and as we have been informed via this forum, reported sexual abuse of clients.

May I again ask you to provide hard evidence to verify the claims made by the [i:5e1e98a036]Master of Dur-Con [/i:5e1e98a036]that his 'tradition' and Tibetan medical claims were authentic.

What would constitute "hard evidence," and hard evidence of what specifically?