Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00591)

Bart Lidofsky wrote:

> I can see at least one 
> natural 
> explanation. It WAS secreted beforehand, and Blavatsky took 
> advantage of 
> the fact that it did not drop down immediately. It was not 
> mentioned 
> whether or not the letter had a wax seal, but if it did, this 
> could be 
> used to stick the letter behind the painting, and would 
> explain a delay 
> between shaking the painting and the letter dropping. Mr. 
> Gebhard's 
> objection was based on the delayed drop being planned in 
> advance.

The problem with the Gephard letter is that there was a trained stage 
magician present who asserted that he was unable to find evidence of 
tricky trickery.

> I never said that I went around tricking people (unless, for 
> example,
> you think that William Shatner intended people to believe he 
really was
> a starship captain).

Yes, he was trying to trick people but he was such a horrible actor 
we all knew it was Bill Shatner. It was tricky but it did not work. 
Sean Connery, on the other hand, could make me think he really WAS 
James Bond.

> Now I remember that one (I had not thought of S.S. referring 
> to a 
> ship). That one, I have no explanation for, assuming the 
> accounts are 
> honest. (I also don't have an explanation of the physical 
> format of many 
> of the Mahatma Letters; the ones with the words formed from 
> lines, and the ink intermixed with the paper).

Aren't words normally formed from lines and isn't ink normally 
intermixed with paper? That may be mysterious but the claim that it 
is has always puzzled me.

> I will point out something I once pulled in a Theosophy class 
> (and, to 
> Steve, IMMEDIATELY after I did it, I explained how I did it). 
> The 
> teacher had written on a group of slips of paper a bunch of 
> terms from 
> the Secret Doctrine (Sanskrit and otherwise). Each student was 
> supposed 
> to pull a slip of paper, read the word, and define it. I, on 
> the other 
> hand, defined the word, THEN pulled the slip of paper. I was 
> correct.
> 
> From that explanation, can anybody figure out how I did it? 

That is a simple trick, Bart. Yes, I found out how that one was done 
years ago. I hope nobody thought you had mysterious powers.

> I think that 
> Blavatsky's 
> insistence on the spot for the picnic is interesting in the 
> context of 
> the teacup materialization. Note that the second article did 
> not mention 
> this factor.

What makes the "phenomenon" uniquely puzzling is that the ground in 
which the teacup was buried was undisturbed prior to the digging. 
Moreover the objects were enwrapped with roots and had to be dug 
out. Otherwise it would be easy to explain.

As for probability versus possibility or whatever it is, occult 
phenomena is antecedently improbable (which is not the same thing as 
impossible) whereas trickery is not. So the P v, P argument does not 
wash.