Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00056)

Brian/Brigitte,

You wrote:

-------------------------------------------------
This tap dance of Daniel Caldwell lends nothing to the debate 
except as has been the repeated pattern of pseudo-historian Caldwell, 
creating confusion and sidestepping the real issues at hand.
----------------------------------------------------

At long last I have a title! :) I can now sign my postings:

Daniel H. Caldwell, P.H.

Speaking of "pseudo", this comment by you reminds me of what Rochus 
Boerner writes in "Some Notes on Skepticism":

". . . the true skeptic refrains from ad hominem attacks and name 
calling while the pseudoskeptic elevates them to an art form." 

Quoted from: http://mathpost.la.asu.edu/~boerner/skepticism.html

Now let us consider some of your other comments:

-------------------------------------------------
Notice how Daniel Caldwell puls all these "stories" out of his
sleeves and try's to pass them them as "valid" testimonies of some 
kind. . . .

It is when these stories/"testimonies" have proof to back them up
that they become more believable. 

Observed Daniel Caldwell do the same hat trick on another list 
someone responded : "How trusting are you when someone comes up to 
you in the street and says, If you come with me you will get $500 
dollars--most adults (for the most part) would not believe the 
person. So why should it be any different when someone makes a claim 
about the paranormal ? 

Now don't get me wrong, some people may say they saw something 
outrageous and it may be that they did--but it was their perception
of the incident. For example, if a person was to say they were 
abducted by aliens and could recount the whole story--that doesn't 
make thestory true to you or I.
----------------------------------------------------------

Well, Brian/Brigitte, I am not the only one trying to pass these 
Theosophical "stories" off as "'valid' testimonies of some 
kind. . . ." In fact, I'm in good company with Steve Stubbs, Paul 
Johnson and your former incarnation Brigitte Muehlegger.

Take the two "stories" of Olcott receiving a KH letter on board the 
S.S. Shannon and the "Gebhard letter" which was discussed many months 
ago on this forum. Steve Stubbs who prides himself in not being 
a "Theosophical fundamentalist" recently wrote on this forum:

"The Shannon letter and the Gebhard letter are GOOD CANDIDATES for 
evidence that some letters were delivered by PHENOMENAL means."
Quoted from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/8398
caps added

Brian/Brigitte, have you taken Steve to task for trying to pass these 
Theosophical "stories" off as "'valid' testimonies of some 
kind. . . ."? 

Please remember what you just wrote:

"It is when these stories/'testimonies' have proof to back them up
that they become more believable." 

I would think that Steve must believe that the 2 cases just cited 
have some "proof to back them up", otherwise why would he 
characterize them as "good candidates"?

OBTW, do you agree with Steve's statement that "the Shannon letter 
and the Gebhard letter are good candidates for evidence that some 
letters were delivered by phenomenal means"?

If you don't agree, then please give us your reasoning.

Moving on to Paul Johnson.

Let's take one of the Theosophical "stories" by H.S. Olcott. See 
his "story" about Ooton Liatto at:

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/olcottooton.htm

Concerning this "testimony", this "story", Johnson wrote in his 
scholarly book "The Masters Revealed" his considered opinion that:

". . . there is little doubt that two real adepts visited Olcott in 
New York."

For more of Johnson's comments, see:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/johnsonooton.htm

Brian/Brigitte, to paraphrase you, we might ask:

Is Johnson trying to pass this "story" off as a "valid" testimony "of 
some kind. . . ."?

And let us not forget your own words:

"It is when these stories/'testimonies' have proof to back them up
that they become more believable."

I assume from Johnson's own words that he considers Olcott's "story" 
as "believeable".

But tell us Brian/Brigitte where is the "proof" you write of that 
makes the Olcott account "more believable"?

And last but not least, let us consider you in your former 
incarnation when you signed your postings as "Brigitte Muehlegger".

Brigitte Muehlegger's assessment of the above "story" by Olcott can 
be found at:

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/muehlegger2.htm

Keeping in mind what you just posted today that "it is when these 
stories/'testimonies' have proof to back them up that they become 
more believable," please tell us, Brian/Brigitte, what proof was 
there to back up Olcott's story which made it believable enough that 
you could write (in your last incarnation)---

". . . That there where real visitors [as Olcott relates in 
his "story"] . . . I have never doubted . . . . " 

It will be interesting to see what your response is. Will you 
sidestep "the real issues at hand" which I have outlined above?

Daniel H. Caldwell, P.H.