Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00007)

Brigitte, I asked you about the two cases
brought up by Steve Stubbs at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UniversalSeekers/message/2956

I asked if these two cases (cup/saucer and letter
incidents) BAFFLED you like they do Steve? You did
not directly answer.

I therefore assume that your answer which reads:

""I do believe that her [Blavatsky's] materializations
of letters and other objects where fraudulent. . . ."

means that you are NOT baffled by these two cases and
can easily explain them away as "fraudulent".

But the fact remains that both Steve Stubbs and I are
baffled by these two cases and I can speak for myself
that I consider these two cases as giving support to
the assertion that Blavatsky materialized objects.

Please share with us your "differing" thinking and
reasoning on these two cases. I'm sure both Stubbs
and I will find your reasons quite interesting.

Finally, what KIND of evidence would convince you that
Blavatsky materialized objects? Maybe I can find it
for you! :)

Or are you saying that there is not ANY historical
evidence from Blavatsky's time that would convince you
that she materialized objects? 

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things
at their right value; and unless a judge compares
notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a
correct decision."
H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.