Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00245)

> Katinka H. wrote in her book review of Pelletier's book THE JUDGE CASE:
>
> "The chapter 15 in which Pelletier tries to make it into something 
> important is merely a lot of >guess-work, in my opinion."
>
> Unfortunately I find numerous examples of this kind of GUESS-WORK.
>
> For instance, Pelletier writes:
>
> "WE CAN ONLY IMAGINE, because there is no strong evidence to support our 
> claim, that the note >was....." Part I, p. 379 caps added
>
> Unfortunately, there are many other examples in Pelletier's book where 
> Pelletier does NOT openly >confess that he is only "imagining" and does NOT 
> plainly admit that there is no strong evidence to
> support this or that claim.
So, after going on and on about Pelletier's "GUESS-WORK", what example does 
he provide us with?  To give some context to the readers of this forum, we 
are here talking about what has come to be called "Exhibit A".  It is a 
letter written by W.Q. Judge to Judge Khandalavala for the purpose of 
putting the Judge's mind to rest after the Coulomb incident.  Pelletier goes 
to great lengths to give background to this letter.  All he is imaging is 
the obvious, that a note affixed to the letter was put there by the 
recipient of the letter, Khandalavala.  We didn't see him to it, but who 
else does Daniel want to blame for its presence?  The letter was shown to an 
Indian Theosophist by the name of Ezekial at Khandalavala's request.  If 
Daniel wants to bring in other players then who does he want to speculate 
that these players might be?  What nonsense.  Pelletier's explanation is the 
simplest one that fits with the facts.  If Daniel wants to pull in other 
players, then he is going to have to find proof in order to do so.

Daniel writes elsewhere:

> Concerning the review of Pelletier's book by Brett Forray in THEOSOPHICAL 
> HISTORY, April, 2005, >pp. 14-23,Forray shows quite clearly that the book 
> is a very ONE-SIDED account of the Judge Case >in Judge's favor. See 
> Forray's numerous examples of this.
> Although Pelletier's book is a treasure trove of historical documents, it 
> is unfortunate that Pelletier >left out so many other relevant documents. 
> Again see examples in Forray's review.
"ONE-SIDED" in what sense? Any rare or difficult to find documentation was 
included in the book. This included Besant's entire "The Case Against W.Q. 
Judge". For other material that is more readily available, what would be the 
point?   This is simply nonsense.  Should we criticize him for not including 
both Judge's and Besant's collected works for whatever insight they may give 
us?  The idea was not to put every document in the book, it was large enough 
as it was, the idea was to make available those documents that are less 
easily found.  As for the rest, Pelletier deals with Forray's criticism in 
his reply.

Next Daniel points out:

> The reprinting of this Garrett document would have been helpful to the 
> reader who might want to >carefully COMPARE the Garrett material with what 
> BOTH Annie Besant wrote in her THE CASE >AGAINST W.Q. JUDGE with Mr. 
> Judge's rebuttals of Mrs. Besant's charges.  The Garrett book helps >in 
> this comparison.
The reprinting would be a waste, just pick up the book and do your own 
comparison.  You do not need Pelletier, or anyone else, to guide you through 
it.  TJC is not meant to be exhaustive.  It was meant to spur on people to 
do their own research.

Next:

> I see that Pelletier has copied into his book from my website the series of 
> articles by H.N. Stokes >on the Judge-Tingley relationship but did NOT  
> include other extremely relevant documents on my >website, such as Judge's 
> diary of Oct-Dec. 1894. This diary throws a great deal of light on Judge's 
> >deposing of Mrs. Besant from co-head of the E.S.T.
> See the diary at:
>  http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokeswqjktdiary.htm
> As I have read and carefully studied the narratives written by Pelletier in 
> this book I have come to >the conclusion that Pelletier employs (as much as 
> Paul Johnson ever did) speculative possibilities >with little or no 
> documentation whatsoever.
Daniel's opinion that the document that he calls a diary (speculative, no 
basis in fact) throws light on Judge's deposing of Mrs. Besant is again 
speculative.  Argue the case Daniel.  It has been speculated elsewhere that 
these documents may be working journals where Judge tested psychics and 
recorded his results.  Perhaps he was testing his own intuitive abilities.  
Perhaps we was communicating with the Masters.  Perhaps he was doing all of 
this. This is all speculation and he may not necessarily have believed the 
content of his "diary".  Regardless, until argument is made one way or 
another, your statement is pure speculation and it must be questioned why 
you think this will add anything to the Judge Case without the proper 
analysis first being done.  As I read your speculative opinions that you are 
throwing around like they are fact, I can't help but feel that this is a 
case of Daniel projecting is own inadequacies onto the work in question.  
These "diaries" are bound to be controversial and are best treated on their 
own.

Again:

> There are also a good number of misstatements of known facts in Pelletier's 
> book.
>
> For example in Chapter 17, Pelletier states:
>
> "...NONE of the reports published at the time depict Judge's involvement at 
> any functions, >ceremonies, writing or signing any documents at 
> headquarters after Sept. 21st, 1884....To show >that Judge was NOT present 
> at Adyar headquarters after September 21st, 1884, it is important to 
> >note....." Part I, p. 385 caps added
>
> Similar statements are repeated elsewhere but Pelletier apparently is NOT 
> aware of the following
> statement by the Rev. George Patterson:
>
> "This morning [Sept. 27th, 1884], by previous arrangement with Dr. 
> Hartmann, I went to the >Head quarters of the Theosophical Society, Adyar, 
> to examine the letters from Mme. Blavatsky to >General Morgan, which that 
> gentleman had, at my request, sent to Madras for my inspection. I was 
> >accompanied by Mr. J.D.B. Gribble (late M.C.S.) the Rev. J.E. Padfield 
> (C.M.S.), Masulipatam, and >the Rev. A. Alexander, of Madras. Dr. Hartmann, 
> Mr. W. Q. Judge, Barrister-at-Law, Mr. Subba Rao, >B.A., B.L., and others 
> met us...."
>
> Quoted from:
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/pattersonmm1884.htm
>
> This reprint of the Patterson letter has been on my website for the last 3 
> or 4 years.
If you read Pelletier's accurate statement he says "NONE of the reports 
published at the time depict Judge's involvement at any functions".  He did 
not say there were no letters, newspaper articles, etc.  In fact, he writes, 
immediately following this about an article in the Madras Mail that 
describes an address given by Judge to some Madras students presumably 
within a few days of the date of the article, September 29th.  Regardless, 
nothing hinges on the date of the 21st so it is immaterial one way or 
another.  Pelletier's statement was accurate, Daniel's criticism is 
mysterious.

And again:

> Furthermore, from Pelletier's narrative it would appear (did I misread it?) 
> that two of his >handwriting experts" did NOT even get to view the 
> photographs of the 1884 Judge letter that he >asked their opinion on!!!!
>
> But part of the material I sent to him and also posted on Theos-Talk months 
> ago included links to >such reproductions.
For those of you who did not read Pelletier's article, just to let you know 
that he is not hiding anything, the experts were not consulted for a 
handwriting analysis.  They were consulted to render a judgment on whether 
ink could be dissolved from paper after the fact, especially the type of ink 
used circa 1884.  They did not need to see the copy in order to make this 
judgment.  It either could or could not be done.  The only copy that is 
worth analyzing to see whether this indeed had been done is the copy sitting 
in the archives at Adyar.  If Daniel wants to debate anyone about this 
letter it should be his friends at Adyar.

And Finally:

> I like the way you think you know what I really think and believe!!
>
> How in heavens do you come to some of your conclusions???!!!
>
> Where does one start to answer all of your suppositions -- one piled upon 
> another?!!
Well, after looking at the effort you put into accusing Pelletier of 
speculation and inaccuracies on the strength of your own wild speculations 
and inaccuracies, the conclusions just seemed to naturally follow.  Your 
effort seems to be that of an individual in a panic to put the lid on 
something that is dangerous to his agenda.  What other excuse is there for 
this type of sloppy and irresponsible analysis?

I trust this explains my "suppositions -- one piled upon another".  The next 
step is to rescue "Exhibit A" from Adyar for independent analysis.  Rather 
than spending time criticizing a book that you have yet to assimilate, 
perhaps you could focus your efforts on the Adyar archives.

Sincerely,
Bruce

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/