Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00206)

Any of these accounts will have to be thoroughly contextualized to assess
any issues of integrity, consistency, alternate explanations, etc. which
might come into play. These reports by themselves are not sufficient. Of
course that applies to the Coulombs and Hodgson too.  

 

From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Daniel
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:18 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: theos-talk to govert: reading two books meade and caldwell

 

  

govert,

when i was working on my book Esoteric world of madame blavatsky, i
especially on purpose included much relevant material which meade had
completely ignored in her book or had downplayed and hardly mentioned. so if
anything one should read the meade book comparing and contrasting it with my
book.

and in my book i on purpose included coulombs and hodgsons accounts on the
mahatmas so that the perceptive reader could compare and contrast what they
said withthe accounts of witnesses who testified they had seen and
encountered the mahatmas.

on my website i even include the testimony of coulomb and hodgson. see
http://blavatskyarchives.com/coulombandhodgson.htm

compare and contrast their accounts with for example olcott's accounts:
http://blavatskyarchives.com/olcottandmahatmas.htm

what would a historian or a member of a jury conclude by reading, studying
and anlyzing these accounts?

food for thought.

daniel
http://hpb.cc



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4756 - Release Date: 01/20/12



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