Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00318)

Daniel, you know very well I said some months ago that
there were two phenomena which seemed to satisfy the
requirements for constituting scientific evidence. 
You replied that you thought there might be some
others, and I admitted that could be possible.

The Ootan Liatto story is not one of them. Nor is the
account by Hartmann that you published.

--- danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com