Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00316)

Steve, you wrote: 

> In a case such as the Ootan Liatto story YOU, Daniel
> H. Caldwell, posted, internal evidence in that story
> and others by the same author (i.e., Olcott), as well
> as internal evidence in various writings by Blavatsky,
> indicate that there was a botanical component to some
> of these phenomena. I don't see how anyone can deny
> that and remain honest in his treatment of the
> material. Statements by Rawson, Woolf, Coleman,
> Deveney, Godwin, and many, many others simply
> corroborate what Blavatsky and Olcott have written
> with their own pens. The question is not whether or
> not to believe Woolf but whether or not to believe
> Blavatsky and Olcott. That one is going to be hard
> for the Fundamentalists to wiggle out of. That said,
> it is clear that some of the visual hallucinations
> described by Wachtmeister, who wandered around in a
> cloud of Blavatsky's second hand hashish smoke, would
> have to be attributed to such a cause. The conditions
> under which the phenomena were observed and reported
> disqualify them as scientific evidence. We can say
> that these things happened, but we cannot say for sure
> whether or not they occurred by "paranormal" means or
> contained any "paranormal" component.
> 
> I think it is plain this has nothing to do with buried
> dishes, floating silverware, your personal excursions
> out of body, etc.
> ........................................
> [Concerning the receipt of a Mahatma Letter by Hartmann:]
> Well, I don't know if it is supernatural or not, but I
> do know it could not be considered scientific evidence
> of supernatural ability. 
> .....................................
> Not very mysterious. The fact that the letter was so
> long proves it was written beforehand, whether by a
> mahatma or by Blavatsky herself. No matter how it was
> delivered it was aurely written before the fact. The
> person writing it must therefore have observed
> Hartmann closely and discerned what would be on his
> mind. Someone thousands of miles away would not have
> been able to do that. At the appropriate
> psychological moment the already writtten letter was
> planted.
> 
> The historical problem is not whether some
> Fundamentalst believes in supernatural phenomena or
> not, but whether a specific alleged phenomenon was
> produced under conditions which would exclude
> chicanery as a plausible alternative explanation. 
> That is not to say that the phenomenon WAS produced by
> chicanery, but if chicanery is a plausible
> explanation, then the story is not evidence of
> anything. The question of whether or not something
> "paranormal" could or could not happen would remain
> open if this were the only evidence.
..............
-----------------------------------------------------------
What is the BOTTOM LINE with you, Steve?

If for purposes of discussion we (you and I and whoever else wants 
to) accept all that you have said above, and accept especially the 
gist of the following two elements of what you have written:

(1) "The conditions under which the phenomena were observed and 
reported disqualify them as scientific evidence. We can say that 
these things happened, but we cannot say for sure whether or not they 
occurred by "paranormal" means or contained any "paranormal" 
component."

(2)"That is not to say that the phenomenon WAS produced by chicanery, 
but if chicanery is a plausible explanation, then the story is not 
evidence of anything. The question of whether or not 
something "paranormal" could or could not happen would remain open if 
this were the only evidence."

then Steve, WHAT ELSE can we conclude?

To amplify what I am "getting out", consider the following:

Do you [Steve Stubbs] believe that there are ANY "paranormal" 
events/experiences involving Madame Blavatsky and her Masters that 
CANNOT be reasonably explained away [i.e. discounted] as either 

(1) nothing but hallucinations caused by drugs or 

(2) faked and staged as in the planting of the Hartmann letter or

(3) chicanery (i.e. chicanery is a plausible explanation) ?????


In other words, do you [Steve Stubbs] accept as genuinely paranormal 
ANY account of a phenomena performed by Blavatsky and/or her Masters?

If you do accept some of the "Blavatsky" phenomena as truly 
paranormal, what are, let us say for discussion purposes, the top 5 
or 10 such cases?

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc