Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00424)

Friends,

These two  previous postings in Theos-talk, see below  -- one by Jerry  Hejka-Ekins, the other by MKR -- add really valuable information and perspective to the "mystery" of David Green and other false persons, who have been active and  present in recent years in the theosophical movement.

 Perhaps Mr. Caldwell will have a desire to clarify the issue this time.  Such large-scale impersonations have an obvious importance for the History of the movement, and Mr. Caldwell  seems to be interested in History.   

Regards,  Carlos.  

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

The Caldwell-Green-Hobbs question
Feb 24, 2006 02:00 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins

Dear Ramadass, Friends,

One doesn't need a computer to analyze and identify patterns in written discourse. Anyone who has taken a course in literary criticism and analysis already has been taught the basic tools they need to do this on their own. 
Personally, I began to suspect that David Green and Daniel Caldwell were the same persons shortly after Green entered the discussion group. My suspicions were partially based upon my own analysis of these discourse patterns. My suspicions were also based upon clues I had previously picked up from dozens of phone conversations with Dan, email exchanges, a four hour meeting my wife and I had with him in Tucson (years before the incidents in question), and because of certain information he had volunteered in confidence.

Paul Johnson did his own investigation and independently noted some of the same patterns I had previously noticed, and made further matches to the Hobbs material. Paul's independent analysis, along with the IP evidence, has made, in my mind, a compelling case for the common identity of the three personae. Further, Dan's defensive message a few months ago, addressing the subject of pseudonyms, in my mind, pushed the evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. Not because of what he specifically wrote, but because of omissions and the way he modified certain information which I also have first hand knowledge. 
I remained silent on this matter because I anticipated that if I spoke up, my doing so would merely draw ridicule, accusations concerning my motive, and solve nothing. Accordingly, Paul Johnson, in stepping forward with his evidence, took a huge personal risk in doing so. Regardless of one's opinion concerning the Caldwell-Green-Hobbs identity I feel that we need to recognize and appreciate the risk Paul had taken by coming forward. 
May I also add that while Dan's guilt or innocence is unprovable in any absolute sense of the term, this situation is an apt warning that we would do well to give serious thought to what can be done in order to make this discussion board a productive and progressive one for the advancement and deepening of our common interest in Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement. My hope is that theos-talk becomes a place where we all may better exchange knowledge and insights in an atmosphere of respect, and where all participants may feel safe in doing so.

Best Wishes,
Jerry



M K Ramadoss wrote:


Couple of days ago while watching the Court Channel on TV, I noticed the
existence of a computer program which analyzes writings to determine if two
sets of doucuments were written by the same person. The program analyzes the
vocabulary and the usage of verbs and nouns etc to detect patterns which
will lead to identification of the author of documents. It is being used to
solve criminal cases. Someone in law enforcement may know more about it.
Then we can use the program to solve the issue of authorship in question.

mkr


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]