theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Tricky Bart on trickery

Apr 19, 2004 11:14 AM
by Bart Lidofsky


stevestubbs wrote:
The problem with the Gephard letter is that there was a trained stage magician present who asserted that he was unable to find evidence of tricky trickery.
But look at the reason why Gephard discounted the possibility that the letter had been planted in advance; this contained the assumption that the delay was planned, as well. If the delay was NOT planned, but the letter affixed better than was intended, it could be explained by Blavatsky going with the flow.

The same thing happens with ALL stage actors. I once saw a presentation of CANDIDE on Broadway. The sound system had a problem, causing a buzzing sound in the system. The actor playing Pangloss adlibbed, "The mosquitos are TERRIBLE this time of year." (which got a big laugh from the audience). When the problem was fixed, he said, "Thank God, someone closed the window." The buzzing was not planned, but the actors managed to deal with the problem without breaking character.

Yes, he was trying to trick people but he was such a horrible actor we all knew it was Bill Shatner. It was tricky but it did not work. Sean Connery, on the other hand, could make me think he really WAS James Bond.
In other words, if you met Sean Connery on the street, you would believe that he was a British government assassin? Or was it just within the context of the movie? I'd suggest you look up "suspension of disbelief" in whatever research source you favor, to see the difference.

Now I remember that one (I had not thought of S.S. referring to a ship). That one, I have no explanation for, assuming the accounts are honest. (I also don't have an explanation of the physical format of many of the Mahatma Letters; the ones with the words formed from lines, and the ink intermixed with the paper).

Aren't words normally formed from lines and isn't ink normally intermixed with paper? That may be mysterious but the claim that it is has always puzzled me.
In the case of the Mahatma Letters (and it's been a few years, so I may not be saying this entirely right), it is said that it was as if the paper had been formed with the words already in place, as opposed to ink getting into the fibers at a later point. I will definitely admit that I do not know enough of the chemistry of the thing to understand exactly what is meant by this, but it sure has impressed a number of people who DO understand the chemistry of the thing. It might be a lost technology (like Greek Fire), but I would still put it in the category of "unexplained".

That is a simple trick, Bart. Yes, I found out how that one was done years ago. I hope nobody thought you had mysterious powers.
They did. May I point out that the teacher was NOT in on the trick, and was impressed (for about 10 seconds, until I told him how I did it, and he had a good laugh).

What makes the "phenomenon" uniquely puzzling is that the ground in which the teacup was buried was undisturbed prior to the digging. Moreover the objects were enwrapped with roots and had to be dug out. Otherwise it would be easy to explain.
Unless she had it prepared, well in advance, waiting for an opportunity to spring it. The fact that she insisted on the place for the picnic, in spite of objections from the others, is indicative of this (and an example of one of the "tells" I had mentioned earlier).

Bart





[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application