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

Caldwell-Green-Hobbs -- A Fraud???

Feb 25, 2006 06:25 AM
by carlosaveline cardoso aveline

Dear Jerry, Dear Friends,

This is impressive. (See below)

It is true thast Paul did us all a great service, is he is right and Daniel has been indeed making all these frauds and playing all these bad tricks at the movement.

Having published a collection of obvious libels against HPB in his book about her, I cannot be entirely surprised at that possibility.

Daniel Caldwell's significant silence since Paul made this possible revelation only puts himself in a very difficult position with regard to the theosophical movement. John Algeo, his sponsor, may also be seen under a new light.

Yet I do not think that Paul Johnson took any risky step by doing that. He did what was his moral and ethical duty to do.

Daniel is in a most difficult position, not Paul. What "huge personal risk" are you talking about? Who is at risk, except Daniel?

No reason to stimulate fear. Fear and hatred both open ways to unkind elementals. Confidence, courage, calm, mutual help, these are some important things for us.

I thank you very much for your frank help to us to find truth, and for not letting this matter falling into oblivion.

And I would add something -- note the remarkable identity of viewpoiints between Dave and Daniel.

One of these days we should write to John Algeo, or to call him by phone, asking him for some help on this "mystery". Perhaps he could give us one or two indications.

Best regards, Carlos.

From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <>
Subject: Theos-World The Caldwell-Green-Hobbs question
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:00:02 -0800

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Ganhe tempo encontrando o arquivo ou e-mail que vocÍ precisa com Windows Desktop Search. Instale agora em

[Back to Top]

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