Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00594)

stevestubbs wrote:
> 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.
But look at the reason why Gephard discounted the possibility that the 
letter had been planted in advance; this contained the assumption that 
the delay was planned, as well. If the delay was NOT planned, but the 
letter affixed better than was intended, it could be explained by 
Blavatsky going with the flow.

The same thing happens with ALL stage actors. I once saw a presentation 
of CANDIDE on Broadway. The sound system had a problem, causing a 
buzzing sound in the system. The actor playing Pangloss adlibbed, "The 
mosquitos are TERRIBLE this time of year." (which got a big laugh from 
the audience). When the problem was fixed, he said, "Thank God, someone 
closed the window." The buzzing was not planned, but the actors managed 
to deal with the problem without breaking character.

> 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.
In other words, if you met Sean Connery on the street, you would 
believe that he was a British government assassin? Or was it just within 
the context of the movie? I'd suggest you look up "suspension of 
disbelief" in whatever research source you favor, to see the difference.

> > 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.
In the case of the Mahatma Letters (and it's been a few years, so I may 
not be saying this entirely right), it is said that it was as if the 
paper had been formed with the words already in place, as opposed to ink 
getting into the fibers at a later point. I will definitely admit that I 
do not know enough of the chemistry of the thing to understand exactly 
what is meant by this, but it sure has impressed a number of people who 
DO understand the chemistry of the thing. It might be a lost technology 
(like Greek Fire), but I would still put it in the category of 
"unexplained".

> 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.
They did. May I point out that the teacher was NOT in on the trick, and 
was impressed (for about 10 seconds, until I told him how I did it, and 
he had a good laugh).

> 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.
Unless she had it prepared, well in advance, waiting for an opportunity 
to spring it. The fact that she insisted on the place for the picnic, in 
spite of objections from the others, is indicative of this (and an 
example of one of the "tells" I had mentioned earlier).

Bart