Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00025)

Ernest Pelletier writes: 

"Interestingly, part of the 'a' was not 
fully suppressed. . . . the note ['Do not 
show these to any one ....'] was purposedly 
placed there in order to conceal the words 
'a friend' to give the impression there 
were no other words after 'by' in the sentence...."

See Display Four:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/wqj/1.htm#Four

But I would like clarification on HOW the
note was placed there in order to conceal
the two words.

How did the "note" conceal or coverup
the two words??

What is Ernest Pelletier suggesting as the
method of "covering up" the words?

Daniel
http://hpb.cc



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> 
> Katinka,
> 
> Thanks for your initial comments. I will
> add my first comments when I 
> have more time. 
> 
> I hope other readers will examine 
> the facsimiles that can be seen at:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/wqj/1.htm
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@k...> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Daniel,
> > 
> > Personally I don't understand why this letter is made so much of. 
If
> > memory serves there is other evidence that Judge could forge 
HPB's 
> or
> > the Mahatma's writing. I don't remember where I read that, but 
that
> > seems the only relevant aspect here. The deleted 'friend' portion 
of
> > the letter refers to that: with the word 'friend' in, someone else
> > forged HPB's handwriting. With the word 'friend' out it looks like
> > Judge shows he can forge her handwriting. 
> > The letter itself is not evidence to anything either way, I 
think. 
> The
> > chapter 15 in which Pelletier tries to make it into something
> > important is merely a lot of guess-work, in my opinion. That is,
> > except for the last part, where he quotes HPB as saying that
> > Khandalavala could imitate her writing so well that she couldn't
> > recognize it herself. 
> > 
> > So it seems we have at least two people here who could have 
imitated
> > HPB's handwriting. The soup is thickening. 
> > 
> > I still can't figure out what motive Khandalavala might have had 
for
> > going against Judge. He wasn't even a Brahmin. 
> > 
> > [the above is nothing more than my first thoughts after reading 
the
> > chapter. Not fit for publication in say Fohat, nor fit to be sent 
to
> > other e-mailgroups.]
> > 
> > Katinka Hesselink
> > 
> > PS. my newsletter is called Lucifer7, not to be confused with 
> various
> > theosophical magazines called Lucifer in the past and present. 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
> > <danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > In the Jan. 2005 issue of LUCIFER,
> > > Ernest Pelletier wrote the following
> > > about his book THE JUDGE CASE:
> > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------
> > > One of the most important points of the book 
> > > is the publication, for the first time ever, 
> > > of Judge's September 17th, 1884 letter to 
> > > Judge Khandalavala. This is the document 
> > > that Adyar has gone out of its way to keep 
> > > from public scrutiny, and used subversively 
> > > to sustain the questioning of Judge's 
> > > veracity. I have it on good authority that 
> > > it is shown only to select individuals to 
> > > "prove" that Judge was supposedly a fraud, 
> > > while at the same time claiming that they 
> > > are in fact "protecting" his reputation 
> > > from being further damaged. The involvement 
> > > of Judge N.D. Khandalavala in setting up 
> > > this whole scenario back in 1892-1893, and 
> > > its perpetuation to date as described above, 
> > > I consider pivotal to the currently existing 
> > > downplay/rejection of Judge and his contribution 
> > > to the Theosophical Movement.
> > > ---------------------------------------------- 
> > > Quoted from:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lucifer7/message/18
> > > 
> > > I am planning to pursue an online investigation
> > > and discussion [hopefully in part on Theos-Talk]
> > > of this claim of tampering with
> > > W.Q. Judge's Sept. 17, 1884 Letter to N.D. Khandalavala.
> > > 
> > > I have produced various reproductions of the letter
> > > in question which can be found on the WWW at:
> > > 
> > > http://blavatskyarchives.com/wqj/1.htm
> > > 
> > > I am hoping some readers will contribute their
> > > own comments here at Theos-Talk.
> > > 
> > > More in the near future.
> > > 
> > > Daniel H. Caldwell
> > > BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER
> > > http://hpb.cc