Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00106)

I am reposting below my reply to Steve Stubbs. 
Several correspondents have written me wondering
why Steve has made no comments to my detailed
points. In light of my post, I myself wonder
if Steve still holds to the "years before"
explanation for the teacup phenomenon.
---------------------------------------------------

Steve,

Thanks for your recent post. I am going to try
to reply to some of your comments because I believe
the underlying ISSUES are so important that they
need to be discussed in enough detail so that there
is a chance that some insight can be thrown on a
number of items.

First, I wrote to you:

"You say that you once believed that the teacup phenomena
and a small number of other phenomena 'precluded the
possibility of fraud.'"

"Steve, you can never preclude the POSSIBILITY of fraud."

You replied:

"Not true. That is what the scientific methood is all about."

Steve, I believe that you are STILL confusing POSSIBILITIES with
PROBABILITIES.

The historians Barzun and Graff writing about NORMAL historical
events comment that:

"...the possibility of forgery. . .is always there."

I could quote other historians to the same effect.

And Ray Hyman, who is an experimental psychologist and one of
the foremost critics of modern parapsychology has also admitted:

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

One can come up with many hypothetical and conjectural
suggestions.

You commend Bart on his very ingenious insight but I could
come up with a dozen other POSSIBLE scenarios.

It is possible that Blavatsky hypnotised the witnesses at
the picnic to see what she wanted them to see. Frank Podmore
advanced this theory to explain many of HPB's phenomena.

It is possible that Olcott and Sinnett were in on the trick
and aided Blavatsky in fooling Henderson, Mahmood and Mrs. Reed.

I'm sure other people could come up with other possible
explanations.

And you have to look at possibilities and probabilities
in the CONTEXT OF what I call the 4 step process of discovery.

Let us take a look at the possible explanation you say
Bart offered.

First I quote your own words:

"Anyway, I thought the teacup phenomenon was rock solid until Bart
showed it could have been prepared years in advance. Bart is
abslutely right and that is discouraging. If it was prepared enough
years in advance everything that was reported could be explained."

Yes, I agree 100% that at step 2 in the 4 step process, it is
POSSIBLE that the cup was buried YEARS IN ADVANCE.

But let us subject this possibility to step 3 (that is, to
known facts, evidence and reason) in order to see if this
possibility can become the most probable explanation or if we
can reasonably weed out this possibility and discard it.

Notice that this possibility is offered with no evidence to
support it. I am not aware of any evidence that Bart or
you offered to support this suggestion of a previous burial
years before.

Let us therefore flesh out this possible scenario.

The cup and saucer incident occurred on Oct. 3, 1880.

Are you and Bart actually suggesting that the cup and saucer were
buried there years before??

Who buried it then --- years before?

Was it Madame Blavatsky who buried it??

Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott had only been in India
since Feb. 16, 1879. That is, only in India for some 20 months.

That is less than 2 years.

According to all historical records, HPB and Olcott had never
even been to Simla before they arrived there in early Sept. 1880.

In light of this, are you or Bart STILL contending that one of them
buried the teacup YEARS BEFORE? Or do you contend someone else at
Blavatsky's direction buried the teacup? Years before???

All historical evidence would indicate the reasonable conclusion that
only 24 months (2 YEARS) before the teacup incident, Blavatsky and
Olcott didn't even know of Sinnett's existence. It was only
in Feb. 1879 that Olcott in Bombay first received a letter from
Sinnett in Allahabad who expressed a desire to become acquainted with
HPB and Olcott.

So how could Blavatsky have engineered the burial of the cup YEARS IN
ADVANCE???

etc. etc. etc. I could go on for another 2 pages ilustrating that
in light of known historical facts and commonsense, the cup was
certainly not buried years in advance by Blavatsky or at Blavatsky's
direction.

But all of this "years before in advance" theory IGNORES other
important testimony given by Sinnett and Olcott.

Mrs. Sinnett owned several different SETS of teacups. How would
Blavatsky know years in advance what cup to bury that
belonged to Mrs. Sinnett whom Blavatsky had not even met???

How would Blavatsky know years in advance what set of teacups
Mrs. Sinnett's servants would pack on that Sunday morning, Oct. 3,
1880?

Furthermore, there would never have been a need for an extra cup and
saucer if Judge Mahmood had not shown up at the last moment to go on
the picnic.

Furthermore, the party walks for miles through the woods of Simla
and yet Blavatsky knows the EXACT spot where a cup had been buried
by someone (???) years before!!!???

I'm sorry but the burial of the teacup years before although
POSSIBLE in theoretical terms makes little sense (if any) when one
compares and contrasts the reasonableness of this hypothesis
with known historical facts and testimonial evidence.

I could elaborate this even more but I think most readers will
see my point.

Hoping I conveyed something useful in the posting.

I will be most happy to discuss the above points in greater
detail or any other relevant point but I simply ask that
we go into the matter in enough detail so that the discussion
is fruitful and not superficial.

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