|
| |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 | Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans?
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 5:53 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Here we skip a couple hundred pages where Mouravieff brings in some Synarchy stuff under the influence of the negative occult "tradition" which was very active at the time he was writing and has influenced many people to follow the wrong path.
and
Mouravieff, an exiled aristocrat, had the typical sense of superiority over Russian émigrés he presumed to be socially inferior, especially someone like Ouspensky
So we have a clear link in the 200 pages Laura conveniently skipped to the Ohkrana at St Petersberg, Blavatsky, Kerensky - Mouravieff was the PPS to the PM
Great find Kris!!! |
| Infinitea
User ID: 14306
7/27/2005 5:59 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
I: That is somewhat disingenuous of you. I´ve quoted more physics here than channeling. But it´s interesting, isn´t it, that so much of what comes through many channelers about the nature of reality, is in sync with quantum physics. Seth, for example, was explaining superstring theory before the physicists!
V: If that´s true, then E. A. Poe discovered relativity in his 1848 essay Eureka! And Jules Verne invented rocketry...
I: I´m willing to bet you´ve never explored the Seth material in any depth at all. IOW, you don´t know what you´re talking about.
And, I HAVE been telling what I think, but you can´t hear it because my ideas aren´t the same as yours.
V: You´ve been telling us what you think you should believe, based on the all knowing channel of the moment, not what you feel, have experienced or even thought about very deeply...
I: Keep saying that, VB...if you say it often enough, that makes it true, right?
I´m beginning to t hink you and Laura aren´t so very different after all.
<skip>
V: Well, I suppose to a true believer, the truth isn´t very important... I like you Infinitea, as I said you have spunk. But you really need to read less and experience more... IMHO...LOL!
I: And you need to open your mind, just a smidgen, to start...LOL! |
| Infinitea
User ID: 14306
7/27/2005 6:06 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
AC: I feel a lot better now that I know that the jews just dreamed the concentration camps, that slaves just dreamed that they were in bondage, that the Irish just dreamed that Cromwell was murdering them.
I: Great!
AC: This site is about Laura Knight Jadczyk. Can we stick the the subject please?
I: Au contraire, this site is a forum for the discussion of ideas and opinions. But, feel free to stick to that subject all you like. You do what you want to do, and I´ll do what I want to do, which may or may not include further posting. |
| kris
User ID: 2892
7/27/2005 6:24 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
holy hell...anonymouse and
anders, you got it exactly.
and just in passing, about this :
"...soviet agent Lord Haldane..."
this guy, or one of his illustrious
relatives, John Burdon Sanderson Haldane,
famously once said
"The Universe is not only queerer than
we suppose; it is queerer than we can
suppose."
that about sums it up
we get off-world agencies,
intel, royals, toffs, various
mafias and
The Cult [the big Cult, not the
C heirs to madame blavatsky]
working toward similar interests
well over a hundred years back
p.d. ouspensky was convinced of
a groundhog day type thing he
called ´recurrence´
where everything kept happening
the exact same way over and over
in a sorta time loop.
he thought if a person really
developed their capacity for
precise observation that maybe
they could awaken to this
perpetual deja vu alloveragain
p.d. said, one of the best things he said:
"Try to remember everything that happens."
 |
| kris
User ID: 2892
7/27/2005 6:52 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
opie mentioned a few posts back
how the energy field around the
larks changed considerably after
the first florida conference
it was some time during that spring
that mouravieff was introduced by
ark
people started carrying the
mouravieff book around with the
Black Robe on the front cover
intro of mouravieff
was a significant turning point. |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 6:55 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
sure
and why was eastern cold war spook ark allegedly drawn to study the organic portal king with a french dictionary?
word by word!???
it looks like mouravieff may have been a plant in the blavatsky mode
he stole the G-man and O-man´s work and rewrote it with some big switcheroos
then ark laps it up
inserts it into Laura
and the rest is history |
| kris
User ID: 2892
7/27/2005 6:57 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
then, at some point after
mouravieff intro
there appeared the bogdanov bros
russian twins were they, not sure |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 7:07 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
sure, russians, and plagiarists, and scam merchants!!!
birds of a feather flock together
The Bogdanoff Affair
John Baez
December 6, 2004
A Hoax?
We all laughed when the physicist Alan Sokal wrote a deliberately silly paper entitled Transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, and managed to get it accepted by a journal of social and cultural studies, Social Text.
But in 2002, on the 22nd of October many of us began hearing rumors that two brothers managed to publish at least five meaningless papers in physics journals as a hoax - and even got Ph.D. degrees in physics from Bourgogne University on the basis of this work!
The rumor appears to have begun with an email from the physicist Max Niedermaier to the physicist Ted Newman, and it spread like wildfire. I received copies from many people, and soon there was a heated discussion of what this meant for the state of theoretical physics. Had the subject become so divorced from reality that not even the experts could recognize the difference between real work and a hoax?
On October 23rd I decided to post an article about this to sci.physics.research, a physics discussion group I help moderate. Entitled Physics bitten by reverse Alan Sokal hoax?, it brought widespread attention to the Bogdanoff affair. It also started a a fascinating discussion on sci.physics.research, to which Sokal and the Bogdanoffs themselves eventually contributed.
By October 24th, Dennis Overbye, a science journalist from the New York Times, began looking into this story. He asked the Bogdanoffs if their work was a hoax, and they indignantly denied it. Igor Bogdanoff soon began circulating emails to this effect. Again, these spread like wildfire, and most people interested in this case have already read one or another version.
Max Niedermaier then emailed the Bogdanoffs an apology, which he urged them to distribute.
Indeed, many aspects of the original rumor are known to be in error. According to Niedermaier, both Bogdanoffs conducted their thesis defense on the same day, in a rented hall with TV crews present. In fact, it seems clear that the Bogdanoffs got their Ph.D.´s at different times. Grichka got a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the Universite de Bourgogne on June 26 1999, passing at the lowest level. On the same day, Igor´s thesis committee failed him. He later got a Ph.D. in Physics from the Universite de Bourgogne on July 8, 2002.
However, I assure you that the Bogdanoff´s theses are gibberish to me - even though I work on topological quantum field theory, and know the meaning of almost all the buzzwords they use. Their journal articles make the problem even clearer. You can easily get ahold of these, because they are appended to the PDF files containing their theses. Some parts almost seem to make sense, but the more carefully I read them, the less sense they make... and eventually I either start laughing or get a headache.
For example, here´s the beginning of Igor Bogdanoff´s paper "Topological Origin of Inertia":
The phenomenon of inertia - or "pseudo-force" according to E. Mach [1] - has recently been presented by J. P. Vigier as one of the "unsolved mysteries of modern physics". Indeed our point of view is that this important question, which is well formulated in the context of Mach´s principle, cannot be resolved or even understood in the framework of conventional field theory.
Here we suggest a novel approach, a direct outcome of the topological field theory proposed by Edward Witten in 1988 [3]. According to this approach, beyond the interpretation propoosed by Mach, we consider inertia as a topological field, linked to the topological charge Q = 1 of the "singular zero size gravitational instanton" [4] which, according to [5], can be identified with the initial singularity of space-time in the standard model.
It goes on to discuss the supposed connection between N = 2 supergravity, Donaldson theory, KMS states and the Foucault pendulum experiment, which he claims "cannot be explained satisfactorily in either classical or relativistic mechanics". If you know some physics you´ll find this statement odd. The Foucault pendulum behaves exactly the way classical mechanics predicts: it is a standard textbook exercise!
After several pages he concludes:
We draw from the above that whatever the orientation, the plane of oscillation of Foucault´s pendulum is necessarily aligned with the initial singularity marking the origin of physical space S3, that of Euclidean space E4 (described by the family of instantons Ibeta of whatever radius beta), and, finally, that of Lorentzian space-time M4.
Zounds! He took that pendulum and rode it right off into hyperspace! I appreciate the fact that to someone not expert in physics, this stuff may seem no weirder than any other paper in a physics journal. He is indeed using actual physics jargon - but I assure you, it makes no sense. How in the world could the plane of oscillation of a pendulum be "aligned with the initial singularity", i.e. the big bang? The big bang did not occur anywhere in particular; it happened everywhere.
Indeed, nothing in any of the Bogdanoff´s papers suggests that they really understand N = 2 supergravity, Donaldson theory, or KMS states. I´m reasonably familiar with all these topics, and as far I can tell, all they write about them is a mishmash of superficially plausible sentences containing the right buzzwords in approximately the right order. There is no logic or cohesion in what they write.
The Bogdanoffs posted an article on sci.physics.research arguing against my characterization of their work. You can read some of the subsequent dialog on my website, and more on sci.physics.research. George Johnson described this discussion quite well in the New York Times: he said that reading it is "like watching someone trying to "nail Jell-O to a wall". The discussion eventually fizzled out amid the Bogdanoff´s attempts to justify their misuse of basic mathematical terminology.
Since their papers make no sense, what was their intention in writing them? By now it seems clear that they were not staging a Sokal-type hoax to show up defects in the refereeing and Ph.D.-granting process. They have lost too much face for this to be a plausible course of action! The main remaining options are 1) that they are engaged in some sort of trick, or 2) that they honestly believe in what they´re doing.
Since they say they believe in what they´re doing, this seems like a plausible explanation. However...
The Plot Thickens
On October 30th, I heard a strange story about the Bogdanoffs that suggested some complicated trickery was afoot. On November 5th, an article by Rich Monastersky appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education, recounting this story:
Trinh X. Thuan, a professor of astronomy at the University of Virginia, sued the Bogdanoffs in France a decade ago, charging that, in God and Science, they had plagiarized his book The Secret Melody: And Man Created the Universe (published in English by Oxford University Press in 1995). In the end, he says, the judge found in his favor, and the brothers, along with their publisher, had to pay 80,000 francs to Mr. Thuan. The brothers say that they did not commit plagiarism and that Mr. Thuan had copied their own earlier work, so they never paid him any money.
The plagiarism lawsuit may explain why the twins were so eager to get doctorates, says Mr. Thuan. The back cover of their book claimed that they held doctorates when they did not, and they hurriedly tried to get degrees as the court case played out in the early 1990s, he says.
John D. Barrow, a professor of mathematical sciences at the University of Cambridge, says the brothers contacted him at that time with an odd request. "They were very anxious to obtain Ph.D.´s very quickly, and they tried to con me into becoming an examiner," he says. "There were two theses that they had submitted. They were laughable compendiums." As for the brothers, he says, "I regard them as mysterious people, not as hoaxers."
The Bogdanoffs say that the statement on the back cover of the book was the fault of a "clumsy" editor who wrote that they had degrees when they were actually in the process of earning them. They also deny trying to get doctorates quickly and say that they had contacted Mr. Barrow about long-term plans.
Such arguments between the Bogdanoffs and others do not surprise Jean Staune, general secretary of the Interdisciplinary University of Paris, who helped Mr. Thuan with the plagiarism case against the brothers. "They are like water," he says. "You can never catch them."
(In the original version of this article, John Barrow had said " I regard them as sinister people". But then the Bogdanoffs threatened to sue, so this was changed to "I regard them as mysterious people".)
The Bogdanoffs come across rather badly in this article. However, their thesis advisor, Daniel Sternheimer, tells the story quite differently in his response to Monastersky´s article:
Dear Monastersky,
I have been forwarded the text of your November 5 Chronicle article, entitled "French TV Stars Rock the World of Theoretical Physics". I shall make only a few comments on facts.
1. You write:
"According to Mr. Sternheimer, Grichka Bogdanoff applied for his Ph.D.in physics in 1999 but was granted one in mathematics instead"
There must be a misunderstanding. Our group (UMR 5029) is in mathematical physics, and its members are affiliated with the Department of Mathematics of Universite de Bourgogne or with the Section of Mathematics in CNRS (or visitors and students). I was sole (administrative) supervisor for Grichka in Dijon. In 1999, given his Thesis, though we have a common "Ecole Doctorale" at our UFR ("faculty") Sciences et Techniques, it was clear that Grichka´s thesis was in mathematics and that appears on the cover of the final Ms. In both cases there was only one other professor from Dijon to complete the Jury: for Grichka, it was a mathematics professor; for Igor, it was a theoretical physics professor: that is not coincidental.
2. You write:
"Trinh X. Thuan, a professor of astronomy at the University of Virginia, sued the Bogdanoffs in France a decade ago, charging that, in God and Science, they had plagiarized his book The Secret Melody:And Man Created the Universe (published in English by Oxford UniversityPress in 1995). In the end, he says, the judge found in his favor, and the brothers, along with their publisher, had to pay 80,000 francs to Mr. Thuan. The brothers say that they did not commit plagiarism and that Mr. Thuan had copied earlier work of their own, so they never paid him any money."
"TXT" is certainly a well established astrophysicist and he is also a quite successful writer of essays, even if none of his essays had the success of "Dieu et la Science". But his memory is very partial.
It is true that a first court decision (in "refereé" in 1991, confirmed in 1992) gave Fayard and him a modest provision of 50000 FFR (50kF) from Grasset and 15kF from the twins. But in January 1994, four members of the French Academie des Sciences (Yves Coppens, Jean Dorst, Andre Lichnerowicz, Etienne Wolf) issued an affidavit, confirmed by Jacques Friedel, then President of the Academy, giving among others a non exhaustive list of 9 quotations, 5 of them appearing in "La melodie secrete", which come from texts by Guitton or the twins prior to the latter (from 1963, 1986 and early 1987).
Prior to that, the magazine Paris Match had given, in its September 12, 1991, and confirmed in affidavits from October 1993 and January 1994, examples proving that TXT had reproduced parts of a "Grand Document" of 50 typewritten pages by Guitton and the twins (December 1986) on the place of God in modern science, and some of another (January 1987) based on the transcript of an interview of Carl Sagan by the twins.
After that a first court decision in March 1994 awarded only 60kF+20KFto TXT for some technicalities. The whole matter of respective accusations of plagiarism went on, but was eventually stopped short by Hachette and an out-of-court agreement was reached, according to which the provisions were returned, TXT renounced to the 80kF, each side paid for the court and lawyer expenses it had made, and the following press release was issued by Hachette (the translation is mine, and I cut some civilities and full names):
"Regretting the echos in the media of the dispute between them, Fayard and their author TXT, Grasset and their authors Guitton and Messrs Bogdanoff, have decided to put a final stop to it, leaving to the whole scientific community the expressions and metaphors to which both of them referred, preserving in this way the respective integrity of the authors."
I have copies of original documents proving the above facts.
The discrepancies between what TXT told you and the last agreement, which he signed along with all parties involved on May 13, 1995, are (mildly speaking) strange. They are far more serious than many menial errors or misrepresentations that the twins let pass (like some about their age, which I have seen in a magazine quoted as 38 when theywere 50; that was 2 years ago; like many women, TV stars feel often flattered to be thought younger than they are).
Another fact is that the "Secret Melody" is now being re-edited and should be out in December (I found that with "Google"). Still another is that "Dieu et la Science" was never published in English (though it has been translated in many languages), and that lawyers´ fees in the US can exceed by far any profit from translations. Any connection between these facts is surely coincidental.
From a distance such as mine, it´s quite hard to tell what´s really going on. Perhaps some long-standing enmities are the ultimate cause of some aspects of this fuss - in which case it may be almost impossible to unravel all the details.
The Media Uproar
When the Bogdanoff affair hit in the popular press, it caused quite a stir. Has theoretical physics has become so abstruse that nobody is able to tell a hoax from serious work? - this theme proved almost irresistable to the journalists.
On November 1st, Andrew Orlowski wrote an amusing but essentially frivolous account of the whole affair in the British paper The Register, entitled Physics hoaxers discover a quantum bogosity.
On November 7th, Christoph Droesser and Ulrich Schnabel wrote a story about it in the German paper Die Zeit, entitled Fairy tales of the brothers Bogdanov. This has some interesting quotes in it, which I will come back to later.
Also on November 7th, a story about the Bogdanoff affair appeared in Nature, written by Declan Butler. This really plays up the supposed uncertainty on the part of the physics community as to whether the Bogdanoff´s work makes sense or not. For example, Butler writes:
So are the papers good science or not? Enquiries by Nature show that few theoretical physicists, including some who reviewed the brothers´ Ph.D. theses, are completely certain. Jac Verbaarschot, of Stony Brook University in New York, reviewed Igor´s Ph.D. He says it contained original ideas, but claims that it was awarded in part because of Igor´s contributions to the public understanding of science. Others have come to harsher conclusions. "They were at best wrong, and most likely just throwing around words with no calculations or proofs to back them up," says Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, who has studied some of the papers.
But Roman Jackiw, a physicist at MIT who reviewed Igor´s thesis, insists that it is of the requisite quality. Robert Coquereaux, from the International Centre for Mathematical Meetings in Marseille, has said that the brothers´ work is certainly no better or worse than that of some established theoretical physicists.
The brothers, who are currently presenting a short television programme in France, insist that their work is genuine. They say that many critics haven´t actually read their entire theses, which are available only in French, and that none of the criticisms made discredits their work. They also point to referees´ reports on their theses. Verbaarschot, for example, declared that Igor´s Ph.D. "ranks as one of the best I have seen in recent years".
With no clear consensus emerging, the credibility of the peer-review system and journals in string theory and related areas is taking a battering. Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University in New York, says that the incident illustrates the speculative nature of much theoretical physics. "The Bogdanoffs´ work is significantly more incoherent than just about anything else being published," he says. "But the increasingly low standard of coherence in the whole field is what allowed them to think they were doing something sensible and to get it published."
On November 9th, Charles Arthur wrote a story for the Independent entitled Did twins doctor up doctorates with physics buzzwords? There´s nothing much new in this one.
Also on November 9th, Dennis Overbye came out with a story in the New York Times, entitled Are they a) geniuses or b) jokers? Like the story in Nature, this plays up the idea that physicists can´t tell good work from bad. It contains quotes from various physicists criticizing the Bogdanoff´s work, but also quotes defending it - especially from Daniel Sternheimer and Roman Jackiw. Sternheimer, you will recall, was the thesis advisor for both the Bogdanoff brothers. Jackiw, a professor of physics at MIT, was one of two `rapporteurs´ who approved Igor Bogdanoff´s thesis. Overbye writes:
Igor´s thesis had many things Dr. Jackiw didn´t understand, but he found it intriguing. "All these were ideas that could possibly make sense," he said. "It showed some originality and some familiarity with the jargon. That´s all I ask."
Igor got his degree in theoretical physics from the University of Bourgogne in July, also with the lowest possible grade, one that is seldom given, Dr. Sternheimer said.
"These guys worked for 10 years without pay," he said. "They have the right to have their work recognized with a diploma, which is nothing much these days".
On November 17th, George Johnson wrote an article about the Bogdanoff affair in the New York Times, concluding that:
As the reverberations from the affair begin to die down, physicists seem to have accepted that the papers are probably just the result of fuzzy thinking, bad writing and journal referees more comfortable with correcting typos than challenging thoughts.
Dr. Sokal seemed almost disappointed. "If someone wanted to test a physics journal with an intentional hoax, I´d say, `more power to them´," he said. "What´s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
The Journals Respond
In the above quote, Johnson put his finger on an important issue: why did at least five journals accept the Bogdanoff´s papers? I have obtained the referees´ reports on three of the Bogdanoff´s papers, which confirms that indeed, some referees were more interested in correcting minor typos than checking the logic of the papers. I also have a damningly negative report by another referee who is now willing to come forth publicly: Eli Hawkins. However, not enough people wrote reports like this to prevent the Bogdanoffs from publishing.
What did the journals say about it all? The Chronicle writes:
Mr. Wilczek is editor in chief of Annals of Physics, which published one of the Bogdanoff brothers´ papers in February. But he and all of the current members of the journal´s editorial board had recently joined and did not handle papers in that issue. He says that standards at the journal had slipped in recent years because of the illness and death of a previous editor in chief.
Although he will not comment on the Bogdanoff paper, Mr. Wilczek says he intends to raise the journal´s standards. As part of that drive, members of the editorial board now do most of the reviewing. "I´m trying to get much tighter control, just because of things like this," he says, referring to the Bogdanoff case.
Hermann Nicolai, editor of Classical and Quantum Gravity, told Die Zeit that if the Bogdanoffs´ paper had reached his desk, he would have immediately sent it back: "The article is a potpourri of the buzzwords of modern physics, that is completely incoherent."
Sometime around November 1st, the editorial board of Classical and Quantum Gravity issued the following statement, which I obtained through Greg Kuperberg:
Classical and Quantum Gravity and the paper "Topological theory of the
initial singularity of spacetime" by G Bogdanoff and I Bogdanoff, Class.
Quant. Grav. 18 4341-4372 (2001)
A number of our readers have contacted us regarding the above paper
and in response we have decided to issue the following statement.
Classical and Quantum Gravity endeavours to publish original research
of the highest calibre on gravitational physics. It is not possible for the
Editorial Board to consider every article submitted and so, in common
with many journals, we consult among a worldwide pool of over 1000
referees asking two independent experts to review each paper. Regrettably,
despite the best efforts, the refereeing process cannot be 100% effective.
Thus the paper "Topological theory of the initial singularity of spacetime"
by G Bogdanoff and I Bogdanoff, Classical and Quantum Gravity 18
4341-4372 (2001) made it through the review process even though, in
retrospect, it does not meet the standards expected of articles in this
journal.
The journal´s Editorial Board became aware of this situation already in
April 2002. The paper was discussed extensively at the annual Editorial
Board meeting in September 2002, and there was general agreement that
it should not have been published. Since then several steps have been
taken to further improve the peer review process in order to improve the
quality assessment on articles submitted to the journal and reduce the
likelihood that this could happen again. However, there are at this time
no plans to withdraw the article. Rather, the journal publishes refereed
Comments and Replies by readers and authors as a means to comment
on and correct mistakes in published material.
We are also grateful to our readers, contributors and reviewers for their
vigilance and assistance both before and after publication.
Dr Andrew Wray
Senior Publisher
Classical and Quantum Gravity
Institute of Physics Publishing
Professor Hermann Nicolai
Honorary Editor
Classical and Quantum Gravity
Albert Einstein Institute
What Next?
The Bogdanoff affair seemed to run out of juice at the end of 2002. The scandal it caused in French academia was dealt with by a committee of professors who wrote a long report... which was then quietly filed away. (I know this from talking to one of the people who wrote it.) The media lost interest, and that seemed to be the end.
But more recently, it has reemerged!
In 2003 I received an email from a mysterious "Professor Yang" arguing that the Bogdanoff´s work made sense. This fellow claimed to be from the "International Institute of Mathematical Physics" at Hong Kong University in Kowloon. I had never heard of him before, so I disregarded his email.
In the summer of 2003 I got an query from Dennis Overbye of the New York Times, saying that he´d gotten a similar email from Professor Yang, and asking me what was up. By sheer chance, I was spending this summer in Kowloon, Hong Kong! So, I was able to contact Hong Kong University and check that there was no International Institute of Mathematical Physics at this university, and no "Professor Yang" in their physics department!
Later, on December 29, 2003, a string theorist named Jacques Distler received a similar email from "Professor Yang", and was able to trace it back to France! He replied to the mysterious Yang; Yang emailed back, again from France... and the email was studded with grammatical errors typical of a native French speaker. At this point, it became fairly clear that Yang was none other than the Bogdanoffs in disguise! You can read all the details on Distler´s web log.
The mathematician Peter Woit also got an email from the mysterious Yang on December 29, 2003. He later discussed it on his web log, pointing out the rather obvious evidence that it came from France. He got another email from one "Roland Schwartz", defending the Bogdanoffs, which he traced back to the same source.
Even better, on June 27, 2004 Woit noticed that the Bogdanoffs had set up a website purporting to belong to a Mathematical Center of Riemannian Cosmology, with a Latvian URL! This presumably nonexistent "center" claims to be devoted to research on the Bogdanoff work. You can read more about it on Woit´s web log.
Why are the Bogdanoffs struggling to redeem their reputation by such underhanded yet comically inept methods? Are they just jokers?
No, not just jokers. They are still doing some TV shows in France, and they have come out with a book, Avant le Big Bang - or "Before the Big Bang" in French. It´s full of silly errors, some which have been listed by Y. B. Messager. But, it seems to be selling quite well!
So, the brothers Bogdanoff may be managing to make money from their minor reputation as experts in France. That would explain a lot.
Still More
In February of 2005, Jean-Pierre Messager sent me the following news:
I noticed you updated your "Bogdanoff page" here is some news about this affair in France:
At the beginning of January, Igor & Grichka Bodanov sued the popular science magazine "Ciel et Espace" who published in October 04 a very documented paper about La mystification des Bogdanov.
In several French speaking forums, two mathematicians specialized in quantum groups and a physicist specialized in cosmology began to talk with Igor on the actual content of their thesis. You can guess the result: all of them, even if quite open-minded at the beginning of the discussion, arrived at the conclusion that the Bogdanov´s work is of no value.
Regards, JP. Messager
The cosmologist is Alain Riazuelo; he wrote a lot of comments about the Bogdanoff´s stuff, most of which can be seen on a French mathematics forum hosted by the University of Strasbourg. The mathematicians include Damien Calaque, and their comments can be found on another forum.
Decide For Yourself
If you wish to judge the Bogdanoff´s work for yourself, there is nothing to do but master the necessary physics and read what they have written. Their theses are available in PDF format online - at least for now:
Igor Bogdanoff, Etat topologique de l´espace temps a echelle 0. (Topological state of spacetime at scale 0.)
Grichka Bogdanoff, Fluctuations quantiques de la signature de la metrique a l´echelle de Planck. (Quantum fluctuations of the signature of the metric at the Planck scale.)
The Bogdanoff´s theses are in French, but there are English versions of the abstracts. Here´s the abstract of Igor Bogdanoff´s thesis:
We propose in this research a new solution regarding the existence and the content of the initial spacetime singularity. In the context of topological field theory we consider that the initial singularity of space-time corresponds to a zero size singular gravitational instanton characterized by a Riemannian metric configuration (++++) in dimension D = 4. Connected with some unexpected topological data corresponding to the zero scale of space-time, the initial singularity is thus not considered in terms of divergences of physical fields but can be resolved in the frame of topological field theory. We get this result from the physical observation that the pre-spacetime is in a thermal equilibrium at the Planck scale. Therefore it should be subject to the KMS condition. We consequently consider that this KMS state might correspond to a unification between "physical state" (Planck scale) and "topological state" (zero scale). Then it is suggested that the "zero scale singularity" can be understood in terms of topological invariants, in particular the first Donaldson invariant. Therefore, we here introduce a new topological index, connected with 0 scale, of the form Zbeta = 0 = Tr (-1)s, which we call the "singularity invariant". Interestingly, this invariant corresponds also to the invariant topological current yielded by the hyperfinite II* von Neumann algebra describing the zero scale of space-time. In such a context we conjecture that the problem of inertial interaction might be explained in terms of topological amplitude connected with the singular zero size gravitational instanton corresponding to the initial singularity of spacetime.
Here´s the abstract of Grichka Bogdanoff´s thesis:
We propose hereafter that the signature of the Space-Time metric (+++-) is not anymore frozen at the Planck scale and presents quantum fluctuations (++++/-) until 0 scale where it becomes Euclidean (++++). (i) At the albraic level we suggest an oscillation path (3,1) (4,0) excluding (2,2). We built the quotient topological space describing the superposition of the Lorentzian and the Riemanian metrics. In terms of quantum groups we evidence a relation between q-deformation and deformation of the signature. We have obtained a new algebraic construction (a new cocycle bicrossproducts by twisting) which allowed us to unify the Lorentzian and the Euclidean signatures within a unique quantum group structure. Moreover the q-deformation of space-time shows that the natural structures of q-Minkowski and q-Riemanian spaces are linked by semiduality. (ii) Regarding the physical motivations we suggest that at the Planck Scale the Space-Time is in KMS state. Within the limits of the KMS holomorph strip, the beta timelike parameter is complex. We propose an extension of relativistic gravity which begins at the Planck Scale with the Lagrangian R + R2 + RR*. Then, the infrared limit of the theory is given at the Planck Scale by the Einstein term in R and corresponds to the Lorentzian metric while the ultraviolet limit is given at beta=0 scale by the topological term RR* and corresponds to the Euclidean metric ( topological sector). We propose a duality between instantons and monopoles in 4 dimensions giving a representation of the superposition of the metrics. (iii) On the cosmological plan we suggest to describe the Initial Singularity of Space Time by a topological invariant I(S) = Tr(-1)S which is analog to the first Donaldson invariant. The initial singularity must be considered as a singular 0-size gravitational instanton. The physical observables are therefore replaced by cycles of homology in the moduli space of gravitational Instantons. We propose a conjecture regarding the existence of a topological amplitude associated to a "topological expansion phase" which preceeds the classical cosmological expansion. This topological phase is also able to be described by the flow of weights of the II* hyperfinite factor type corresponding to the beta=0 initial singularity.
The papers by Grichka and Igor Bogdanoff include:
Grichka Bogdanoff and Igor Bogdanoff, Topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity 18 (2001), 4341-4372.
Grichka Bogdanoff and Igor Bogdanoff, Spacetime Metric and the KMS Condition at the Planck Scale, Annals of Physics, 296 (2002), 90-97.
Grichka Bogdanoff and Igor Bogdanoff, KMS space-time at the Planck scale, Nuovo Cimento, 117B (2002) 417-424.
Igor Bogdanoff, Topological origin of inertia, Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, 51 (2001), 1153-1236.
Igor Bogdanoff, The KMS state of spacetime at the Planck scale, Chinese Journal of Physics, 40 (2002).
I have looked at all these papers. It is interesting to note that the Annals of Physics paper is almost identical to the Nuovo Cimento paper, and the Chinese Journal of Physics paper is also very similar to these two.
© 2004 John Baez
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 7:08 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
end of previous
The papers by Grichka and Igor Bogdanoff include:
Grichka Bogdanoff and Igor Bogdanoff, Topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity 18 (2001), 4341-4372.
Grichka Bogdanoff and Igor Bogdanoff, Spacetime Metric and the KMS Condition at the Planck Scale, Annals of Physics, 296 (2002), 90-97.
Grichka Bogdanoff and Igor Bogdanoff, KMS space-time at the Planck scale, Nuovo Cimento, 117B (2002) 417-424.
Igor Bogdanoff, Topological origin of inertia, Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, 51 (2001), 1153-1236.
Igor Bogdanoff, The KMS state of spacetime at the Planck scale, Chinese Journal of Physics, 40 (2002).
I have looked at all these papers. It is interesting to note that the Annals of Physics paper is almost identical to the Nuovo Cimento paper, and the Chinese Journal of Physics paper is also very similar to these two.
© 2004 John Baez
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 7:10 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Ark has been busy muddying the waters defending them:
PAM Bulletin: Vol. 30, No. 3
1) The Bogdanov Brothers and their Hoax; or was it just Questionable Physics?
... ( [link to math.ucr.edu]
www.sla.org/division/dpam/ pam-bulletin/vol30/no3/physics.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
The Bogdanov Singularity - Ark posts to sci.physics
It seems that it is open season on the Bogdanov Brothers, ... Cassiopaean materials
Copyright © 1994-2004 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. ...
cassiopaea.xmystic.com/cass/bog-ark2.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
The Bogdanov Singularity
The two brothers are at the centre of international rumours and polemics because the
... For Arkadiusz Jadczyk, a physicist who has become the Bogdanoff’s ...
cassiopaea.xmystic.com/cass/bog-lanoy_trans.htm - 34k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from cassiopaea.xmystic.com ]
bogdanov
Unfortunately, this did not work out, as the brothers, skeezed on rigorous ...
came from a possibly more independent-minded physicist, Arkadiusz Jadczyk. ...
theorie5.physik.unibas.ch/saraga/bogdanov.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages
The Bogdanov Affair
The Bogdanov Affaire started with a rumor that two brothers published at ...
4) Statement by Arkadiusz Jadczyk - The only way I can see out of the trap is ...
quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/bogdanovs.htm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages
The Bogdanov Affair - The Story
The Bogdanov Brothers - for so they are called - are advocates of bridging science
and ... On 28 Oct 2002 at 23:22, igor.bogdanov wrote:. > Dear Dr Jadczyk, ...
quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/bogdanov1.htm - 84k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from quantumfuture.net ]
PEN-L message, [PEN-L:32083] We need this for economics (Reformatted)
Scientists have been debating whether the Bogdanov brothers are really geniuses with
... Dr. Arkadiusz Jadczyk, a Polish theoretical physicist who has been ...
archives.econ.utah.edu/ archives/pen-l/2002w45/msg00266.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
Comments on 21378 | MetaFilter
Indeed, nothing in any of the Bogdanov´s papers suggests that they really ...
Here is a dialog between physicist Arkadiusz Jadczyk and various people ...
www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/21378 - 51k - Cached - Similar pages |
| kris
User ID: 2892
7/27/2005 7:20 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
curiouser and curiouser |
| kris
User ID: 2892
7/27/2005 7:26 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
from above on the bros:
"They are like water. You can never
catch them." |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 7:28 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
: [Sokal´s hoax]
:> Of course scientists themselves are not immune from this same problem.
:> [link to chronicle.com]
: The "of course" is probably wrong. Note the difference between the two
: cases: While the peer review process of the journals has apparently
: failed, the peer review process of the scientific community worked
: fine. The result: The journals try to improve their standards.
What evidence is there that the journals try to improve their standards?
The papers were published and they were granted PhD´s. If not
for the notoriety of the Bogdanov´s themselves no one may have
ever noticed any of this.
The current peer review process relies on a certain trust that
the submitter is being sincere, because most topics are so
complicated, and so much research is so specialized that there are few
people that can easily determine if something is correct or not,
or in some cases even if it makes sense.
The same hoax was perpetrated by Laura - think about it. |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 7:35 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Blavatsky and Laura
[link to www.cassiopaea.org]
more similarities
last sentence
t was in this environment, that Henry Olcott made contact with Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, and out of this contact and friendship developed the Theosophical Society. Blavatsky, the daughter of a Russian aristocrat, made various outrageous claims regarding her early life and her travels. She claimed to have visited Tibet where she made contact with certain Hidden Masters. She was also to write two important works, _Isis Unveiled_ which argued against the materialism and scientism of her day and _The Secret Doctrine_ which outlined her system, revealed her racial doctrines, and expressed her belief in Hidden Masters. The headquarters of the Theosophical Society were subsequently moved from New York to India, where various conflicts between the temperamental and morbidly obese Blavatsky and other members arose.
[link to www.new-age-store.info] |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 7:35 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
from above on the bros:
"They are like water. You can never
catch them."
Hmmm now who does that remind me of? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16887
7/27/2005 7:38 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
        |
| kris
User ID: 2892
7/27/2005 7:39 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
this is sure weird
so helena and the
bogdanov bros
apparently followed a
v similar basic structure
of a real complicated long con
with elements
still in use today. |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 7:40 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
The Bogdanovs
Machine translation into English
With the Lecreux bookshop
The Bogdanoff brothers in visit
Many people come to have an autograph and to make dedicate their book. We give you here the professional course as of these two brothers whose passion of physics and mathematics made two large researchers of them. Grichka Bogdanoff, graduate of the Institute of Political Studies of Paris then doctor en´ mathematical writes with Igor, his twin, 7 tests, novels and collections of news of science fiction. As of the Eighties, they launch out both in the production of scientific magazines and are producers presenters of Time X on TF1 so far. Grichka in parallel leads a career of researcher in mathematics to the University of Burgundy and since 1992 he is an author with his Igor brother of a theory (scale zero of the space time).
Igor Bogdanoff, is graduate of a DEA of semiology (School of the high studies) then becomes doctor in theoretical physics with 1´ Université of Burgundy. Two lives, two careers: that of stimulating producer and that of scientific researcher. These two exceptional beings also make advance research on the stars. They were born in Gers, where they return ressourcer from time to time. They were accompanied today by great professor Arkadiusz Jadczyk. with the prize list quite as eloquent. A press conference was then given at the château de Saint Martin´s.
[link to www.prismeshebdo.com]
[link to laura-knight-jadczyk.com] |
| kris
User ID: 2892
7/27/2005 7:43 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
hey, one bro a grad in semiology
does that mean he a semiotician ?
that explain everything ! |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 7:47 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
this is sure weird
so helena and the
bogdanov bros
apparently followed a
v similar basic structure
of a real complicated long con
with elements
still in use today.
it´s all over the net
they are laughing stocks |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 7:51 PM | | Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 8:02 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
More skullduggery and who should pop up???
Ark.
Not Even Wrong
« Dartmouth Talk | Main | de Branges and the Riemann Hypothesis »
June 05, 2004
Bogdanovs Redux
A couple years ago two French brothers, Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, managed to get Ph.Ds in France and publish several nonsensical papers about quantum gravity in refereed physics journals, several of them rather well-known and prestigious ones. John Baez has a useful web-page about this story.
This whole thing seemed to me strong evidence of how in recent years there has been a collapse of any real intellectual standards in this part of theoretical physics, and I ended up being quoted about this in various places. The "Affaire Bogdanov" died down fairly quickly, and the scandal doesn´t seem to have lead to much in the way of higher standards.
I recently heard from Fabien Besnard, who wrote to tell me that the Bogdanovs have a new book out, called "Avant le Big-bang" (Before the Big Bang), in which they quote me as endorsing their work. Besnard has a web-page (in French) on the latest developments in the L´affaire Bogdanoff.
The Bogdanovs wrote me last year, here´s a copy of their e-mail. I made the mistake of thinking "maybe these guys aren´t so bad, just overly-enthusiastic sorts who could use a little helpful advice", and wrote this back to them. In their book they use part of my e-mail, mis-translating:
"It´s certainly possible that you have some new worthwhile results on quantum groups.." (I was being too polite here; while possible, it is unlikely)
as
"Il est tout a fait certain que vous avez obtenu des resultats nouveaux et utiles dans les groupe quantiques" (It is completely certain that you have obtained new worthwhile results on quantum groups).
One lesson from this is not to write back to crackpots. Another strange part of this story: late last year I received an e-mail purporting to be from a "Prof. L. Yang" at the "International Institute of Mathematical Physics" at Hong Kong University. It appeared to come from
th-phys.edu.hk
a domain name that is registered with the Hong Kong DNS, supposedly by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. I connected to the web-site at this address, which at the time contained an official-looking web-page for this Insitute. It now contains just a listing of directories, one of which is full of .pdf files of the papers of Arkadiusz Jadczyk.
This web-site is hosted by a US web-hosting company "Everyone´s Internet, Inc." If you look carefully at the header for this e-mail you see that while it purports to be from
"liu-yang.imp@th-phys.edu.hk"
it really comes from
th-phys.edu.hk (ATuileries-117-1-27-138.w193-253.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.253.192.138])
which appears to be a machine connecting to the internet from Paris, set to claim to be "th-phys.edu.hk".
It´s looking more and more like the original idea that the Bogdanovs were hoaxers, putting on the physics community, was closer to the truth than the idea that they are serious, just not very good, researchers.
Update: The comment section received a message from a supposed mathematician named "Roland Schwartz" defending the Bogdanov´s work on quantum groups. The source of the comment was
IP number 217.128.255.129. The DNS shows
nslookup 217.128.255.129
Name: ATuileries-117-1-29-129.w217-128.abo.wanadoo.fr
Address: 217.128.255.129
Funny, this seems to be a very close neighbor in Paris of Prof. L. Yang.....
I also just noticed that Jacques Distler has posted an account of his experiences with "Prof. L. Yang" et. al.
Posted by woit at June 5, 2004 12:32 PM |
| OPie
User ID: 11340
7/27/2005 8:06 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
"They are like water. You can never
catch them."
Well, you know what they say about like attracting like ... |
| Infinitea
User ID: 14306
7/27/2005 8:36 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Interesting critique of Theosophy. Any correspondences with laura/the C´s?
In criticizing theosophy we must first of all ask: which theosophy? Historically the word means the experience of the divine, in distinction to theology which is discussion about God. This experience of the ultimate, of reality, of life, of truth, is beyond all discussion. It exists wherever a man has it and cannot be criticized or denied. Secondly, the word has been used in an early theosophical manifesto as "the archaic system of esoteric wisdom in the keeping of the brotherhood of adepts."
[ibid.]...Theosophy was born in the Victorian Era. The end of the nineteenth century was a period divorced from life. Man had lost the sense of vital relations and had made objective absolutes out of things which have meaning only as living relations. Thus he looked upon the world surrounding him as an objective universe standing opposite him, independent of his consciousness. Actually what we call the world surrounding us is the way in which we interpret the reality that affects our consciousness. This interpretation in terms of our consciousness is our world-image which is real only with relation to the consciousness of which it forms part. As long as this relation is recognized all is well; life or reality affects man and through him is externalized as a world-image in his consciousness. Man is the focus through which this process takes place, and there is an unimpeded flow of life reality affecting him and, through him, becoming world-image.
When however, man forgets that he is only a focus of reality and feels himself as a separate being, a soul or a spirit, all changes. Instead of recognizing that what he calls the world is his interpretation, in terms of consciousness, of the reality that affects him, he objectivates that world-image and makes it into an absolute, opposite him: the world of matter. In a similar way he separates himself from that life which creates the world-image in him, he objectivates that too and calls it God or Spirit. Thus he finds himself isolated between two worlds: a world of gross matter outside and a world of subtle spirit within. This duality henceforth rules his life and in practice he has to choose between its two elements. This choice is one between materialism and idealism.
In the 19th century this antithesis was a very real one, and theosophy, based on that dualism, identified itself with the idealistic world-view as against the materialistic. It fought the materialism of its day and was frankly idealistic or spiritual in its philosophy. It still is; in theosophical doctrine the spiritual world is looked upon as the real world in which man, the higher Self has his true home. From that world he descends into these lower worlds of matter where through his "lower bodies" he gathers experience. When, through this experience his Self has become perfected, it returns to that world beyond, whence it came. Thus theosophy is a philosophy of the Beyond; its ultimate reality is not this physical world but a world removed from it by several stages, its fulfilment is not in the present but at a future time when perfection shall be reached. Thus, in space and time, it is a philosophy of the Beyond.
Man himself is the open door to reality, he is the focus through which reality becomes world-image and in his own actual experience of the moment he can therefore find the open door to all life. This is no mystic state, no "merging into the absolute," if such a thing were possible; it is a process taking place in the actual common experience of the actual present moment at the actual place where man finds himself. The experience you have at this actual moment at this place is the open door to reality - nothing else. It is in the here and the now that the way of life is to be found.
The men and women of the new age have therefore no time for a dualistic philosophy which preaches an outworn idealism, they have no interest in a philosophy of the Beyond. And such, in their eyes, is theosophy. It was born in an age of dualism, it allied itself with one of its two elements, the spiritual, its reality in a world beyond and its perfection at a future date and is in that respect a relic of the past rather than a promise of the future.
Unless its philosophy becomes one of the here and the now, recognizing that reality or life can only be approached through the actual experience of the moment, and nowhere else, there is no future for it and it will cease to have other than a historical interest.
Another characteristic of the 19th century was its fear of life. Where man has disconnected himself from life he is afraid of it and seeks a shelter or refuge. He looks for a final certainty, a system which will solve all problems of life so that Life, which he dreads, shall not be able to take him unawares or upset his comfortable existence. A system of philosophy therefore which claims to solve the problems of life and to be able to explain all that happens has a very strong appeal for such a man.
excerpts from pamplet: Revelation or Realization: The Conflict in Theosophy by J.J. van der Leeuw, LL.D.(Amsterdam: N.V. Theosofische Vereeniging Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1930) |
| Anders (BBM)
User ID: 2845
7/27/2005 9:09 PM | | Re: Ok, enough about Nancy and the Zetas. What do you all know about Laura and the Cassiopaeans? | Quote |
Thanks Infinitea: here is some more, again we must all make up our own minds...
The Plagiarisms Of
Madame Blavatsky
Educate-Yourself
The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©
7-7-5
"There is not a single dogma or tenet in theosophy, nor any detail of moment in the multiplex and complex concatenation of alleged revelations of occult truth in the teachings of Madame Blavatsky and the pretended adepts, the source of which cannot be pointed out in the world´s literature. From first to last, their writings are dominated by a duplex plagiarism, - plagiarism in idea, and plagiarism in language. " W.E. Coleman August, 1893
(Editor´s Note: As revealed in the books of David Icke and others, Russian born Madame Helen P. Blavatsky was yet another disinformation agent laboring on behalf of British oligarchs. Ulterior motives for establishing the Theosophical Society and the subsequent promotion of Blavatsky´s material by Alice Bailey had more to do with creating an interest in the occult (the Egyptian ´Mystery´ School - the Illuminati´s "religion") and the covert inculcation of satanism. Before they changed the name to the "Lucius Trust", the publishers of Alice Bailey´s books actually had the temerity to call themselves the "Lucifer Trust".
The latter half of the 19th century was a busy time for the British oligarchs. Their agents, like Karl Marx or Blavatsky or the Coefficients, were setting up the doctrines and movements which would later flourish in the 20th century (communism, the New Age movement, and the state of Israel) which today have led us to the current brink of police state tyranny, mind control and population reduction, via covert genocide, on a global scale...Ken Adachi)
By William Emmette Coleman
[link to educate-yourself.org]
July 7, 2005
Forward courtesy of Dr. Kanya Vashon McGhee
drkanya9@hotmail.com
[link to www.blavatskyarchives.com]
Original Title -
The Sources of Madame Blavatsky´s Writings
By William Emmette Coleman
(First published in A Modern Priestess of Isis by Vsevolod Sergyeevich Solovyoff,
London, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1895, Appendix C, pp. 353-366.)
During the past three years I have made a more or less exhaustive analysis of the contents of the writings of Madame H. P. Blavatsky; and I have traced the sources whence she derived - and mostly without credit being given - nearly the whole of their subject-matter.
The presentation, in detail, of the evidences of this derivation would constitute a volume; but the limitations of this paper will admit only of a brief summary of the results attained by my analysis of these writings. The detailed proofs and evidence of every assertion herein are now partly in print and partly in manuscript; and they will be embodied in full in a work I am preparing for publication, - an expose of theosophy as a whole.
So far as pertains to Isis Unveiled, Madame Blavatsky´s first work, the proofs of its wholesale plagiarisms have been in print two years, and no attempt has been made to deny or discredit any of the data therein contained. In that portion of my work which is already in print, as well as that as yet in manuscript, many parallel passages are given from the two sets of writings, - the works of Madame Blavatsky, and the books whence she copied the plagiarised passages; they also contain complete lists of the passages plagiarised, giving in each case the page of Madame Blavatsky´s work in which the passage is found, and the page and name of the book whence she copied it. Any one can, therefore, easily test the accuracy of my statements.
In Isis Unveiled, published in 1877, I discovered some 2000 passages copied from other books without proper credit. By careful analysis I found that in compiling Isis about 100 books were used. About 1400 books are quoted from and referred to in this work; but, from the 100 books which its author possessed, she copied everything in Isis taken from and relating to the other 1300.
There are in Isis about 2100 quotations from and references to books that were copied, at second-hand, from books other than the originals; and of this number only about 140 are credited to the books from which Madame Blavatsky copied them at second-hand.
The others are quoted in such a manner as to lead the reader to think that Madame Blavatsky had read and utilised the original works, and had quoted from them at first-hand, - the truth being that these originals had evidently never been read by Madame Blavatsky.
By this means many readers of Isis, and subsequently those of her Secret Doctrine and Theosophical Glossary, have been misled into thinking Madame Blavatsky an enormous reader, possessed of vast erudition; while the fact is her reading was very limited, and her ignorance was profound in all branches of knowledge.
The books utilised in compiling Isis were nearly all current nineteenth-century literature. Only one of the old and rare books named and quoted from was in Madame Blavatsky´s possession, - Henry More´s Immortality of the Soul, published in the seventeenth century.
One or two others dated from the early part of the present century; and all the rest pertained to the middle and later part of this century. Our author made great pretensions to Cabbalistic learning; but every quotation from and every allusion to the Cabbala, in Isis and all her later works, were copied at second-hand from certain books containing scattered quotations from Cabbalistic writings; among them being Mackenzie´s Masonic Cyclopaedia, King´s Gnostics, and the works of S. F. Dunlap, L. Jacolliot, and Eliphas Levi.
Not a line of the quotations in Isis, from the old-time mystics, Paracelsus, Van Helmont, Cardan, Robert Fludd, Philalethes, Gaffarel, and others, was taken from the original works; the whole of them were copied from other books containing scattered quotations from those writers.
The same thing obtains with her quotations from Josephus, Philo, and the Church Fathers, as Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and all the rest. The same holds good with the classical authors, - Homer, Ovid, Horace, Virgil, Plato, Pliny, and many others.
The quotations from all these were copied at second-hand from some of the 100 books which were used by the compiler of Isis.
In a number of instances Madame Blavatsky, in Isis claimed to possess or to have read certain books quoted from, which it is evident she neither possessed nor had read. In Isis, i., 369-377, are a number of quotations from a work of Figuier´s, that she claimed to have taken from the original work, which she says (i., 369) now "lies before us".
As every word from Figuier in Isis was copied from Des Mousseaux´s Magie au Dix-neuvieme Siecle, pp. 451-457, the word "lies" in the sentence used by her is quite a propos. In Isis, i., 353, 354, et seq., she professed to quote from a work in her possession, whereas all that she quoted was copied from Demonologia, pp. 224-259.
In ii., 8, she claimed that she had read a work by Bellarmin, whereas all that she says about him, and all that she quotes from him, are copied from Demonologia, pp. 294, 295. In ii., 71, she stated that she had a treatise by De Nogen, but all that she knows about him or his treatise was taken from Demonologia, p. 431. In ii., 74, 75, the reader is led to believe that certain quotations from The Golden Legend were copied by her from the original; the truth being that they were taken from Demonologia, 420-427. In ii., 59, she gave a description of a standard of the Inquisition, derived, she said, from "a photograph in our possession, from an original procured at the Escurial of Madrid"; but this description was copied from Demonologia, p. 300.
In Isis, i., pp. xii, to xxii., is an account of the philosophy of Plato and his successors. Nearly the whole of these ten pages was copied from two books, - Cocker´s Christianity and Greek Philosophy, and Zeller´s Plato and the Old Academy. There are some 25 passages from Cocker and 35 from Zeller; and, of all these, credit is given for but one citation from Cocker and about a dozen lines from Zeller. In Isis, ii., 344, 345, 9 passages are copied from Zeller, but one of which is credited.
Here follows a list of some other of the more extensive plagiarisms in Isis. It includes the names of the books plagiarised from, and the number of passages in them that were plagiarised: -
Ennemoser´s History of Magic, English translation 107 passages.
Demonologia, 85 "
Dunlap´s Sod: the Son of the Man, 134 "
Dunlap´s Sod: the Mysteries of Adoni, 65 "
Dunlap´s Spirit History of Man, 77 "
Salverte´s Philosophy of Magic, English translation 68 "
Des Mousseaux´s Magic au Dix-neuvieme Siecle, 63 "
Des Mousseaux´s Hauts Phenomenes de la Magie, 45 "
Des Mousseaux´s Moeurs et Pratiques des Demons,. 16 "
Supernatural Religion, 40 "
King´s Gnostics, 1st edition, 42 "
Mackenzie´s Masonic Cyclopaedia, 36 "
Jacolliot´s Christna et le Christ, 23 "
Jacolliot´s Bible in India, English translation. 17 "
Jacolliot´s Le Spiritisme dans le Monde, 19 "
Hone´s Apocryphal New Testament, 27 "
Cory´s Ancient Fragments, 20 "
Howitt´s History of the Supernatural, 20 "
Among the other books plagiarised from may be named Eliphas Levi´s Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie, and his La Science des Esprits, La Clef des Grands Mysteres, and Histoire de la Magie;
Amberley´s Analysis of Religious Belief, Yule´s Ser Marco Polo, Max Muller´s Chips, vols. i. and ii., Lundy´s Monumental Christianity, Taylor´s Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries (1875 ed.), Reber´s Christ of Paul, Jenning´s Rosicrucians,
Higgins´s Anacalypsis, Inman´s Ancient Faiths in Ancient Names, Inman´s Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism, Inman´s Ancient Faiths and Modern, Wright´s Sorcery and Witchcraft, Bunsen´s Egypt, Payne Knight´s Symbolical Language of Ancient Art and Mythology, Westropp and Wake´s Ancient Symbol Worship, Pococke´s India in Greece, Findel´s History of Freemasonry,
The Unseen Universe, Elam´s A Physician´s Problems, Emma Hardinge´s Modern American Spiritualism, More´s Immortality of the Soul, Draper´s Conflict between Religion and Science, Randolph´s Pre-Adamite Man, Peebles´s Jesus: Myth, Man, or God, Peebles´s Around the World, Principles of the Jesuits (1893),
Septenary Institutions (1850), Gasparin´s Science and Spiritualism, Report on Spiritualism of the London Dialectical Society (1873), Wallace´s Miracles and Modern Spiritualism, and Maudsley´s Body and Mind.
Two years ago I published the statement that the whole of Isis was compiled from a little over 100 books and periodicals. In the Theosophist, April, 1893, pp. 387, 388, Colonel Olcott states that when Isis was written the library of the author comprised about 100 books, and that during its composition various friends lent her a few books, - the latter with her own library thus making up a little over 100, in precise accordance with the well-established results of my critical analysis of every quotation and plagiarism in Isis.
The Secret Doctrine, published in 1888, is of a piece with Isis. It is permeated with plagiarisms, and is in all its parts a rehash of other books.
Two books very largely form the basis of this work, - Wilson´s translation of the Vishnu Purana, and Prof. Winchell´s World Life. The Secret Doctrine is saturated with Hinduism and Sanskrit terminology, and the bulk of this was copied from Wilson´s Vishnu Purana.
A large part of the work is devoted to the discussion of various points in modern science, and the work most largely used by Madame Blavatsky in this department of her book was Winchell´s World Life.
A specimen of the wholesale plagiarisms in this book appears in vol. ii., pp. 599-603. Nearly the whole of four pages was copied from Oliver´s Pythagorean Triangle, while only a few lines were credited to that work.
Considerable other matter in Secret Doctrine was copied, uncredited, from Oliver´s work. Donnelly´s Atlantis was largely plagiarised from.
Madame Blavatsky not only borrowed from this writer the general idea of the derivation of Eastern civilisation, mythology, etc., from Atlantis; but she coolly appropriated from him a number of the alleged detailed evidences of this derivation, without crediting him therewith.
Vol. ii., pp. 790-793, contains a number of facts, numbered seriatim, said to prove this Atlantean derivation. These facts were almost wholly copied from Donnelly´s book, ch. iv., where they are also numbered seriatim; but there is no intimation in Secret Doctrine that its author was indebted to Donnelly´s book for this mass of matter.
In addition to those credited, there are 130 passages from Wilson´s Vishnu Purana copied uncredited; and there are some 70 passages from Winchell´s World Life not credited. From Dowson´s Hindu Classical Dictionary, 123 passages were plagiarised.
From Decharme´s Mythologie de la Grece Antique, about 60 passages were plagiarised; and from Myer´s Qabbala, 34. These are some of the other books plagiarised from: Kenealy´s Book of God, Faber´s Cabiri, Wake´s Great Pyramid, Gould´s Mythical Monsters, Joly´s Man before Metals, Stallo´s, Modern Physics,
Massey´s Natural Genesis, Mackey´s Mythological Astronomy, Schmidt´s Descent and Darwinism, Quatrefages´s Human Species, Laing´s Modern Science and Modern Thought, Mather´s Cabbala Unveiled, Maspero´s Musee de Boulaq, Ragon´s Maconnerie Occulte, Lefevre´s Philosophy, and Buchner´s Force and Matter.
The Secret Doctrine is ostensibly based upon certain stanzas, claimed to have been translated by Madame Blavatsky from the Book of Dzyan, - the oldest book in the world, written in a language unknown to philology. The Book of Dzyan was the work of Madame Blavatsky, - a compilation, in her own language, from a variety of sources, embracing the general principles of the doctrines and dogmas taught in the Secret Doctrine.
I find in this "oldest book in the world" statements copied from nineteenth-century books, and in the usual blundering manner of Madame Blavatsky. Letters and other writings of the adepts are found in the Secret Doctrine.
In these Mahatmic productions I have traced various plagiarised passages from Wilson´s Vishnu Purana and Winchell´s World Life, - of like character to those in Madame Blavatsky´s acknowledged writings. Detailed proofs of this will be given in my book. I have also traced the source whence she derived the word Dzyan.
The Theosophical Glossary, published in 1892, contains an alphabetical arrangement of words and terms pertaining to occultism and theosophy, with explanations and definitions thereof. The whole of this book, except the garblings, distortions and fabrications of Madame Blavatsky scattered through it, was copied from other books.
The explanations and definitions of 425 names and terms were copied from Dowson´s Hindu Classical Dictionary. From Wilson´s Vishnu Purana were taken those of 242 terms; from Eitel´s Handbook of Chinese Buddhism, 179; and from Mackenzie´s Masonic Cyclopaedia, 164.
A modicum of credit was given to these four books in the preface. But, inasmuch as, scattered through the Glossary, credit was given at intervals to these books for a certain few of the passages extracted therefrom, its readers might easily be misled, by the remark in the preface relative to these four books, into the belief that said remark was intended to cover the various passages in the Glossary where these books are named as the sources whence they were derived and these alone, - that the passages duly credited to said books comprised the whole of the matter in the volume taken from them, instead of being but a small part of the immense collection of matter transferred en masse to the Glossary.
But the four named in the preface are not the only books thus utilised. A glossary of Sanskrit and occultic terms was appended to a work called Five Years of Theosophy, published by Mohini M. Chatterji in 1885. At least 229 of these terms and their definitions were copied in Blavatsky´s Glossary, nearly verbatim in every instance; and no credit whatever was given for this wholesale appropriation of another´s work.
I cannot find a single reference to Chatterji´s glossary in any part of the later Glossary. Nearly all of the matter concerning Egyptian mythology, etc., in the latter, was copied from Bonwick´s Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought. A small part of this was credited, but over 100 passages from Bonwick were not credited.
Nearly every word in relation to Norse and Teutonic mythology was copied from Wagner´s Asgard and the Gods, - a little being credited, and some 100 passages not. Most of the Thibetan matter was taken from Schlagintweit´s Buddhism in Thibet, - some credited, but nearly 50 passages were not. Much of the material anent Southern Buddhism was copied from Spence Hardy´s Eastern Monachism, - nearly 50 passages being uncredited.
Most of the Babylonian and Chaldean material was extracted from Smith´s Chaldean Account of Genesis, with nearly 50 passages not credited. The Parsi and Zoroastrian matter was from Darmesteter´s translation of the Zend-Avesta, and West´s translation of the Bundahish in the Sacred Books of the East, - mostly uncredited.
Among other books levied upon in the compilation of the Glossary, principally with no credit given, are these: Sayce´s Hibbert Lectures Myer´s Qabbala, Hartmann´s Paracelsus, Crawford´s translation of the Kalevala, King´s Gnostics, Faber´s Cabiri, Beal´s Catena of Buddhist Scriptures, Rhys Davids´s Buddhism, Edkins´s Chinese Buddhism, Maspero´s Guide au Musee de Boulaq, Subba Row´s Notes on the Bhagavad Gita, Kenealy´s Book of God, Eliphas Levi´s Works, and various others.
The Voice of the Silence, published in 1889, purports to be a translation by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky from a Thibetan work. It is said to belong to the same series as the Book of Dzyan, which is true; as, like that work, it is a compilation of ideas and terminology from various nineteenth-century books, the diction and phraseology being those of Madame Blavatsky. I have traced the sources whence it was taken, and it is a hotch-potch from Brahmanical books on Yoga and other Hindu writings;
Southern Buddhistic books, from the Pali and Sinhalese; and Northern Buddhistic writings, from the Chinese and Thibetan, - the whole having been taken by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky from translations by, and the writings of, European and other Orientalists of to-day. In this work are intermingled Sanskrit, Pali, Thibetan, Chinese, and Sinhalese terms, - a manifest absurdity in a Thibetan work.
I have traced the books from which each of these terms was taken. I find embedded in the text of this alleged ancient Thibetan work quotations, phrases, and terms copied from current Oriental literature.
The books most utilised in its compilation are these: Schlagintweit´s Buddhism in Thibet, Edkins´s´s Chinese Buddhism, Hardy´s Eastern Monachism, Rhys Davids´s Buddhism, Dvivedi´s Raja Yoga, and Raja Yoga Philosophy (1888); also an article, "The Dream of Ravan," published in the Dublin University Magazine, January, 1854, extracts from which appeared in the Theosophist of January, 1880.
Passages from this article, and from the books named above, are scattered about in the text of The Voice of the Silence, as well as in the annotations thereon, which latter are admitted to be the work of Blavatsky. Full proofs of this, including the parallel passages, will be given in my work on theosophy; including evidence that this old Thibetan book contains not only passages from the Hindu books quoted in the article in the Dublin Magazine, but also ideas and phrases stolen from the nineteenth-century writer of said article.
One example of the incongruity of the elements composing the conglomerate admixture of terms and ideas in the Voice of the Silence will be given. On p. 87, it is said that the Narjols of the Northern Buddhists are "learned in Gotrabhu-gnyana and gnyana-dassana-suddhi".
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky copied these two terms from Hardy´s Eastern Monachism, p. 281. The terms used in Northern Buddhism are usually Sanskrit, or from the Sanskrit; those in Southern Buddhism, Pali, or from the Pali. Hardy´s work, devoted to Sinhalese Buddhism, is composed of translations from Sinhalese books, and its terms and phrases are largely Sinhalese corruptions of the Pali. Sinhalese terms are unknown in Northern Buddhism.
The two terms in the Voice of the Silence, descriptive of the wisdom of the Narjols, are Sinhalese-Pali corruptions, and therefore unknown in Thibet. Narjol is a word manufactured by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, from the Thibetan Nal-jor, which she found in Schlagintweit´s work, p. 138, - the r and l being transposed by her.
Esoteric Buddhism, by A. P. Sinnett, was based upon statements in letters received by Mr. Sinnett and Mr. A. O. Hume, through Madame Blavatsky, purporting to be written by the Mahatmas Koot Hoomi and Morya, - principally the former.
Mr. Richard Hodgson has kindly lent me a considerable number of the original letters of the Mahatmas leading to the production of Esoteric Buddhism. I find in them overwhelming evidence that all of them were written by Madame Blavatsky, which evidence will be presented in full in my book.
In these letters are a number of extracts from Buddhist books, alleged to be translations from the originals by the Mahatmic writers themselves. These letters claim for the adepts a knowledge of Sanskrit, Thibetan, Pali and Chinese.
I have traced to its source each quotation from the Buddhist scriptures in the letters, and they were all copied from current English translations, including even the notes and explanations of the English translators.
They were principally copied from Beal´s Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese. In other places where the adept (?) is using his own language in explanation of Buddhistic terms and ideas, I find that his presumed original language was copied nearly word for word from Rhys Davids´s Buddhism, and other books.
I have traced every Buddhistic idea in these letters and in Esoteric Buddhism, and every Buddhistic term, such as Devachan, Avitchi, etc., to the books whence Helena Petrovna Blavatsky derived them. Although said to be proficient in the knowledge of Thibetan and Sanskrit, the words and terms in these languages in the letters of the adepts were nearly all used in a ludicrously erroneous and absurd manner.
The writer of those letters was an ignoramus in Sanskrit and Thibetan; and the mistakes and blunders in them, in these languages, are in exact accordance with the known ignorance of Madame Blavatsky there anent. Esoteric Buddhism, like all of Madame Blavatsky´s works, was based upon wholesale plagiarism and ignorance.
From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan, although published, in letters to a Russian journal, as a veracious narrative of actual experiences of Madame Blavatsky in India, was admitted by Colonel Olcott in Theosophist, January, 1893, pp. 245, 246, to be largely a work of fiction; and this has been even partially conceded in its preface.
Like her other books it swarms with blunders, misstatements, falsehoods and garblings. Full expose of it will be included in my work. The Key to Theosophy, by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, being a compendium of doctrines, its plagiarism consists in the ideas and teachings which it contains, rather than in plagiarised passages from other books.
In addition to wholesale plagiarism, other marked characteristics of Madame Blavatsky´s writings are these: (1) Wholesale garbling, distortion and literary forgery, of which there are very many instances in Isis particularly.
The Koot Hoomi letters to Hume and Sinnett contain garbled and spurious quotations from Buddhist sacred books, manufactured by the writer to embody her own peculiar ideas, under the fictitious guise of genuine Buddhism. (2) Wealth of misstatement and error in all branches of knowledge treated by her; e.g., in Isis there are over 600 false statements in Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Assyriology, Egyptology, etc. (3) Mistakes and blunders of many varied kinds
- in names of books and authors, in words and figures and what not; nearly 700 being in Isis alone. (4) Great contradiction and inconsistency, both in primary and essential points and in minor matters and details. There are probably thousands of contradictions in the whole circuit of her writings.
The doctrines, teachings, dogmas, etc., of theosophy, as published by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, and affirmed to be derived from the quasi-infallible Mahatmas of Thibet, were borrowed from the philosophies and religions of the past and present, with some admixture of modern science.
There is nothing original in this "Wisdom of the Gods," or "Wisdom Religion," save the work of compilation into a composite whole of the heterogeneous mass of materials gathered by Madame Blavatsky from so many sources, and the garblings, perversions, and fabrications indulged in by her in the preparation of the system of thought called theosophy.
A careful analysis of her teachings shows that they were collected from the sources named below.
(1) Madame Blavatsky was a spiritualistic medium many years before she became a theosophist, and in its inception theosophy was an off-shoot from spiritualism; and from this source was a large part of her theosophy taken.
I find that its teachings upon some 267 points were copied from those of spiritualism.
(2) In its later form, Hinduism constitutes one of the larger portions of theosophy. I have not attempted an exhaustive classification of the numerous minor points taken from this source, but I have noted 281 of the more important.
(3) From Buddhism I have noted 63.
(4) In the beginnings of theosophy, the basis of most of its teachings was derived from the works of Eliphas Levi, and I count 102 points therefrom borrowed.
(5) From Paracelsus´s works were taken 49.
(6) From Jacob Bohme, 81.
(7) From the Cabbala, 86.
(8) From Plato, the Platonists, the Neo-Platonists, and Hermes, 80.
(9) From Gnosticism, 61.
(10) From modern science and philosophy, 75.
(11) From Zoroastrianism, 26.
(12) From Kingsford and Maitland´s Perfect Way, 24.
(13) From general mythology, 20.
(14) From Egyptology, 17.
(15) From the Rosicrucians, 16.
(16) From other mediaeval and modern mystics, 20.
(17) From miscellaneous classical writers, 16.
(18) From Assyriology, 14.
(19) From Christianity and the Bible, 10.
In addition, doctrines and data, in lesser number, have been derived from the following-named sources:
The writings of Gerald Massey, John Yarker, Subba Row, Ragon, J. Ralston Skinner, Inman, Keeley, Godfrey Higgins, Jacolliot, Wilford, Oliver, Donnelly, Mackenzie, Bulwer-Lytton, Kenealy, and various others; also from Chinese, Japanese, Phoenician, and Quiche mythologies.
There is not a single dogma or tenet in theosophy, nor any detail of moment in the multiplex and complex concatenation of alleged revelations of occult truth in the teachings of Madame Blavatsky and the pretended adepts, the source of which cannot be pointed out in the world´s literature. From first to last, their writings are dominated by a duplex plagiarism, - plagiarism in idea, and plagiarism in language.
San Francisco, California, U. S. A.,
2nd August, 1893.
William Emmette Coleman
Member, American Oriental Society, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Pali Text Society, Egypt Exploration Fund, Geographical Society of California; Corresponding Member, Brooklyn Ethical Association; and Member, Advisory Council, Psychic Science Congress, Chicago, Illinois.
Comment
Alton Raines
7-8-5
Blavatsky was one wicked woman. She literally ´bought´ a hindu child from its impoverished parents, convincing them he was the reincarnation of Krsna (Krishna), and toured the little boy around for many year |
|
|
