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

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,

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.


On 2/24/06, kpauljohnson <> wrote:


My current manuscript is suffering from lack of attention, and I had
intended to give a few days' notice before taking a two month hiatus
from the discussion here starting at the beginning of March. But
there is really nothing more for me to say; having been drawn into
what is essentially an inter-Theosophical quarrel I now must let
Theosophists work these things out among themselves. When I return
after a couple of months away, perhaps more will have come to light
that will clarify matters.

As for John's implicit threat, a lawsuit would certainly be an
interesting way to get to the bottom of the David Green mystery.
Let's separate two questions here. 1) Is David Green a real person?
and 2) If not, who is the author of Green's articles and messages on

As to the first question, apart from all the evidence already cited,
there is a marked internal inconsistency that strongly indicates a
false persona. Quite a few of Green's messages are written in a
peculiar style marked by certain odd mannerisms. Like always calling
HPB "Mrs. Blavatsky" and constantly leaving off articles (a, an and
the). This seems like someone for whom English is not a first
language. But then in other messages, most of them in fact, his
English is perfectly normal. This seems like someone is forgetting
to "stay in character."

As to the second question, Brigitte Muehlegger was clearly not in
sufficient command of English spelling or syntax to have written the
Green messages, nor did she ever show one iota of interest in Green's
preoccupation with attacking the ULT. Someone else has. If we accept
the premise that Green is not real, then the obvious person to ask
for an explanation is his alleged co-author who has described knowing
him personally.

I'll be unsubscribing this afternoon, but will read today's messages
before doing so.


Yahoo! Groups Links

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Back to Top]

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