Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00017)

I wrote:

===========================================================

Now let us take a look at the implications of Bart's
assertion that the occult phenomena were faked.

===========================================================


Bart now replies:


==========================================================

I would like you to show me where I ever made such an assertion.

==========================================================


Bart, I will quote below some of your own words about the cup & 
saucer phenomenon. I guess you will now quibble over what you were 
actually trying to tell readers on Theos-Talk.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE 1 from Bart

And the very fact that it WAS buried that way is, in fact,
an indicator that it was faked. Why materialize the teacup in that
manner? To make it look more impossible; that is the only possible
motivation. There are many magic tricks which involve getting an
object into an "impossible" position....

-------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE 2 from Bart

....it could have been buried just a few days before. And it also 
could have been palmed, although I suspect that it was planted 
before, especially considering that it was Blavatsky who
suggested (insisted on) the spot for the picnic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Bart, I asked you WHO planted the cup and saucer? and you replied:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE 3

Probably Blavatsky with help; most probably one of the servants;
Khitmutgar comes to mind immediately.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE 4 from Bart

OK, I don't know what the exact terrain was. But, if one digs in at an
angle to the roots, one can push them aside, put in the teacup, then
refill the hole with dirt, making it appear that the roots grew around
the teacup. Since the entry hole may be a couple of feet from where
the teacup was found, it is likely that it wasn't noticed, especially
if it were covered by a rock and moss.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE 5 from Bart

We have phenomena which have never been duplicated, and we have 
natural explanations. You take your pick, and everybody else can take 
theirs

---------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE 6 from Bart

If Blavatsky could materialize a teacup, why didn't she just do it in
full view of everybody?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Bart, I look forward to your "quibbling" explanation of the above 
quotes, but I would think that most readers would get the message 
from these six quotes that you believe that the cup and saucer 
phenomenon was faked. 

You make quite a categorical statement when you remark:

"And the very fact that it WAS buried that way is, in fact,
an indicator that it was faked." 

You are advocating here a NEGATIVE HYPOTHESIS as Dr. Truzzi would 
phrase it. A "true skeptic" (as defined by Truzzi) would not do that.

Your arguments as given above is the same kind used by James Randi
in many of his so-called exposes of various paranormal claims. I do 
not think James Randi can be called a "true skeptic" as defined by 
Dr. Truzzi.

Shall we quibble more?

Daniel

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