Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00066)

I recently wrote on Theos-Talk:

"It would be interesting to know exactly which of HPB's
phenomena you are CERTAIN were FAKED. Furthermore,
it would be interesting to know your specific reasons for
believing that these phenomena were faked. This might
help other readers on this forum to understand your
thinking process on this matter."

Bart, you replied:

"Asked and answered. Twice. No more."

I assume you are telling us that you have answered this 
question before on Theos-Talk.

I have tried to find some of your relevant posts and 
found the following exchange between us. There may be
more items.

First a quote from one of your previous emails:

"As far as being specific, I do not choose to go through 
the research necessary to specify which I think were 
fake and which I think were real (well, actually, I think 
the teacup trick was probably real, because I don't really 
see Blavatsky doing the advance perparation necessary when
there was no knowledge that another setting would even be 
useful). I gave no absolute statements one way or the other, 
and the entire question simply distracts from my main point, 
and that is that anybody who uses Sidhi's, real or faked, as a 
demonstration of spiritual advancement is immediately suspect."

I now give the links:

http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/199812/tt00238.html

http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/199812/tt00240.html

Your above quoted statement was written in 1998.

Do you still maintain that "the teacup trick was probably 
real..."?

And I repeat again what I wrote in 1998:

---------------------------------------------------
It is true that various skeptical magicians over 
the past 150 years or so have performed most of the 
phenomena produced by various mediums or by HPB herself.
Yes, GIVEN THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS, a good magician 
can perform (i.e. fake) almost any psychic phenomena 
known to humankind. But does such a performance mean
that therefore ALL apparent psychic phenomena are 
fake, not-real, suspect, etc.?

Yes, given the proper stage, the proper equipment, 
and a number of assistants, magicians can outperform 
most if not all mediums. But does that mean therefore
that ALL phenomena produced by mediums, psychics and 
occultists are thereforefake, not real, etc.? 
One must always ask: what were the conditions under which
the phenomenon was produced or occurred?

Yes, there are fake mediums. But does that admission 
mean that ALL mediums are fakes?
---------------------------------------------------

And before one gives the "arguments" of the Amazing
Randi too much credence, one should consider the following:

"Magicians Who Endorsed Psychic Phenomena" 
By George P. Hansen 
http://tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/MagWhoEndors.htm

As far as I can tell from what you have written, Bart, I
see nothing in your statements that would convince me
that Blavatsky actually faked phenomena and I believe Steve
Richards has been guilty of too readily accepting your arguments
which I find vague and ill-defined.

Also Steve Richards should remember the following
statement by Ray Hyman:

"...it is ALWAYS possible to 'imagine' some scenario 
in which [for example] cheating [or lying or "tricks"],
no matter how implausible, could have occurred."

Bart, it appears to me that you have simply used this type of
argument in stating that some of Blavatsky's
phenomena were faked.

And I contend this is an illegitimate argument.

For more details to support my view, see:

"Possibility versus Probability"
http://blavatskyarchives.com/possibleversusprobable.htm
http://theosophy.info/possibleversusprobable.htm

Daniel
http://hpb.cc
http://theosophy.info