Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel II)

1) New blog on the kid : Chris Ferrara the Conspirator, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Debate with John Médaille on Geocentrism, 3) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Getting Back to Tom Trinko on Geocentric Satellites and Some Other Things, Especially Whether Literal Belief is Protestant, 4) With David Palm and Sungenis, 5) With David Palm, Sungenis, Robert Bennet and Rick DeLano, 6) Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry, 7) Aftermath of the Quarrel, 8) Diatribe with Robert Bennett (Two Teas), 9) HGL's F.B. writings : Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel I), 10) Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel II), 11) Where I Get a Dislike to Mark Stahlman

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Médaille "Paganism isn't "wrong"; It is just incomplete,"

You mean Gentile religion at the start. When we talk about Pagans, we talk about the last of the Gentile religions resisting conversion to Christianity.

" and subject to some degeneration (as are all religions, including the Catholic religion.)"

When Gentile turns to Pagan, it is degenerated.

Catholicism in subject x can indeed degenerate. But Catholicism in the Church as such cannot turn to error, unlike what Paganism did. Gentiles started to fall into idolatry around the time of Nimrod.

" But the Church does recognize itself as "semper reformanda", Always in need of reform."

No. Its members are, the Church itself is not.

"It makes a big difference whether the earth is stationary."

For some things yes. Tychonian orbits of planets (Venus circling Sun which circles Earth, Mars having Deimos and Phobos circling it and circling Sun which cirles Earth) does indeed make the atheistic and chance explanation of geocentrism offered by Epicurus even more impossible than it wsa from its start. But, hardly to the weather.

"Weather is an obvious example of turbulent flow."

Sure.

"The motive power is the rotation of the solid earth, which causes flows in the more fluid atmosphere and oceans. To say the Earth is stationary and the oceans and atmosphere is moving due to astronomical influences is nonsense."

Depends on what is between us and the stars. Btw, what you call nonsense is exactly what St Thomas Aquinas believed.

Turbulent flow caused by sphere above atmosphere, lunar, that moving west due to sphere above it until you come to Prime Mobile which is moved by God. That is how his Prima Via is explained in more detail in Summa Contra Gentes. That is also how Riccioli takes his Prima Via.

With a "thin space" (basically just void, though for some unknown reason capable of transmitting light and gravitation), you have a point, though not too definite a one. With a thick space (wavelengths of electromagnetic spectrum being waves in aether, bodies having their vectors or lack thereoef in relation to aether etc.) we get sth else.

Prime Mobile is moved by God, it means aether flows westward at roughly speaking equal angular speed through the universe from sphere of fixed stars down to the turbulent flow we call weather.

Tychonian orbits mean then that the planets are not fixed in certain spheres around earth but rather moving up and down through aether - this was unknown to St Thomas.

On less accorded to Greek philosophy and more to its mythology and Hebrew cosmology, we do get a "thin space" scenario, and weather also would, not just in detail but even in the broadest parts of the turbulent flow, namely westward along equator, be caused by angels down on earth dancing in time with the dance of the stars.

Paganism is more complete than Modern Philosophy thereon, but of course erroneous in worshipping any either stars or lower angelic beings.

"And why is the Earth stationary, when we can see all the other planets revolving? What kind of mechanics would make an exception for this planet?"

The mechanics in which the most basic and broad causes of movement in matter are spirits, including God.

Aether moves westward (optional) because God so rotates it. Sun and Moon and Planets have their at least seasonal (monthly, yearly, etc) if not daily movement determined by angels. Earth is still because neither God nor any angel is moving it.

"And why? Why does this question even come up? Is it because of something in the Bible?"

Day and night proclaim the glory of God.

First mover argument * heliocentrism * stars are just suns like ours = Bruno's damnable heresy, each solar system having its own God.

Plus of course Joshua X. Which came up in the process against Galileo in 1616.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
(two other answers)

Mark Stahlman, "Do the GEO-CENTRISTS "deny" that the Earth revolves on its axis?"

Yes. Like Pope Urban VIII in 1633.

TL, I think what you are polemising against is basically Sungenis - how about reading what he says about what is proof and what is explanation before summing up his position in a denigrating way?

"Which is why I dislike arguments from fittingness and most all of speculative theology."

Well, that is already one bad turn Heliocentrism did you!

Mark Stahlman

Thanks -- since I'm new to all this (even though I was *born* into it -- Catholic mother, Heliocentrist *historian* father), I've just bought Geo-Centrism 101 and look forward to reading it . . . !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Médaille "While technically the stationary earth and geocentrism are different"

Actually geostasis falls into two major camps.

Round earth in centre of universe, flat earth in one ledge somewhere in the middle but not necessarily central in a box shaped universe (was abandoned after geographic discoveries - may I remind you that there is no geographic discovery in that sense which has similarily proven heliocentrism).

Rotating earth but also moving heavens for the nondaily motions has been proposed but hardly ever widely believed. It was btw implicated in the second condemned proposition in 1633.

" in practice a rotating earth makes geocentrism absurd even to the geocentrist: you have the earth's movement's added to the sky's movements, and things get a little...er....complex."

I'd rather say a rotating earth:

• makes St Thomas Aquinas' Prima Via a non-argument;
• makes God a liar in the context of Joshua X, since God did not hear Joshua tell Earth to stop rotating in front of all Israel before it, in that case, stopped rotating.

John Médaille about the razor:

• Heliocentrism simplifies orbits, but complexifies human knowledge;
• Geocentrism simplifies human knowledge while complexifying orbits.

So, pick or chose, I'd rather God gave us a rather straight path to correct knowledge.

Mark Stahlman, as far as I know Ockham was a Franciscan, not a Fraticello. That said, I am not buying his application of the "razor" to deny the Platonic ideas or the Aristotelic categories.

MD, what do you mean by "Damn literalists"?

Is one wrong for denying the allegorical sense (like the Blessed Virgin being allegorically involved in all four OT women who were called individually "blessed among women" or "blessed")?

Or is one wrong for pursuing the literal sense as literally true to the utmost? Whichever it is, you seem to consider it "damned" wrong.

The first if it I consider wrong too, and does not concern this debate.

The second of these was never defined as "damned" wrong by the Church.

GNB, as to "so many people deny evolution and human-caused climate change!" you may feel free to count me among these. Unless you consider radioactive radiation a "climate".

Mark Stahlman

GNB: As always, to consider the "validity" of something like (Darwinian) Evolution or "Climate Change," you need to start by examining the FIRST PREMISES of these theories. Can you do that . . . ??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mark Stahlman, "climate change" is hardly deniable. It is whether it is manmade or not.

I say it is not, we are not as hot yet as in the 1200's.

[South Greenland had agricultural produce back then and England could grow grapes for wine, I think. The record coldness was in the 1600's, when Great Belt froze so that a Swedish King could march over it on ice. With his army and horses not just infantry.]

Mark Stahlman

Yes, Ockham was a FRATICELLI in the sense of defying the Pope and following Micheal of Cesena to Munich to be protected by Louis of Bavaria -- the Douie book is the best I've found (in English) on all this. As you likely know, there is also some fascinating literature linking DANTE into all of this, including this one by Rene Guenon . . . !!

[not linking]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Gueron or Guénon?

Dante was a Thomist.

And even if Ockham at one point was Fraticello, does not mean that is all there is to the razor.

Oh, Guénon.

Well, hardly a man I have the utmost respect for, since he apostasised to Derwishism.

Mark Stahlman

Indeed -- however the CLIMATE change that most interests me is the one generated by our INVENTIONS, regarding which, speaking to Jacques Maritain, "The Prince of this World [yes, who is an *angel*] is a very great electrical engineer."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Possible.

However, I started reading Guénon, saw "Hell represents the profane world" on page 13 and wondered what if Hell, Purgatory and Heaven are simply the Hell, Purgatory and Heaven of a Catholic and Geocentric Christian of that century?

Too simple for a man like Guénon?

[Actually, I started on page 13, so it is not as if I had read 12 pages before I found a fault.]

Mark Stahlman

Guenon was, by many accounts, functioning as a "spy" with his attempts to "infiltrate" the SUFI orders (none of which alters his apostacy) and, even if DANTE was a "Thomist" does that rule out him also being a TEMPLAR (and a "Catharist" devoted to Parfait-style movements/initiations) . . . ??

Wikipedia : Cathar Perfect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar_Perfect

John Médaille

The Catechism defines the Church as semper reformanda.

Mark Stahlman

WHICH Catechism (Catholic or Rosicrucian) . . . ?? The one you *should* be using is this one (the basis of a *class* I'm now taking on the topic) . . .

Baltimore Catechism and Mass No. 3: The Text of the Official Revised Edition 1949 with Summarizations of Doctrine and Study Helps Paperback – January, 1995
by Francis J. Connell (Author), David Sharrock (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Baltimore-Catechism-Mass-No-Summarizations/dp/0965602400/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426427274&sr=8-2&keywords=baltimore+catechism+3

John Médaille

" makes God a liar in the context of Joshua X," Yes, this line in the Bible is the mainspring of the whole debate, which is why it is so ridiculous. Even under modern astronomy, it is proper to say "Sun, stand thou still," since movement is measured relative to the observer. IOW, the whole debate is unnecessary from the standpoint of "saving the Bible." The Bible is correct either way.

As a surveyor, I used sidereal tables, which listed the times of sunrise and sunset. This was not an error; from the standpoint of the surveyor, it is the sun that is moving, while the theodolite is stationary.

" WHICH Catechism (Catholic or Rosicrucian) . . . ?? " The one the Church tells me to use. I am a man living under obedience; I don't get to choose which Catechism sets the norm for the Church.

Mark Stahlman

As you know very well, the American Catholic Church was nearly *wiped* out following Vatican II, so you are under NO OBLIGATION at all to use the materials which fed that -- and no one in Rome will tell you that you have to either. So, do you know the Catechism in which you found that phrase and who put it there . . . ??

Re-Formed Jesuits: A History of Changes in Jesuit Formation During the Decade 1965-1975 Paperback – April, 1992
by Joseph M. Becker (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Re-Formed-Jesuits-History-Formation-1965-1975/dp/0898704022/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426436687&sr=8-2&keywords=reformed+jesuits

John Médaille

Mark, far from "as you know," I have no idea what you are talking about.

Mark Stahlman

No problem -- that is why I included a pointer to a book on the topic of the *collapse* (er, "re-forming") of the American Jesuits, which you might enjoy reading (even if the author's promise of giving us a "cause" for these changes was not one could fulfill) , , , <g>

MD

It is foolish literalism to think our centrality is derived from celestial mechanics or spatial location, ie, any false ideas that the Earth is physically still, central, fails to spin, orbit, or travel with the solar system around the Galaxy. Nevertheless, we are central as the sole [so far] locus of consciousness and the site of the Incarnation. There, in very simple words. "Damned" is dialogue, not to be taken, well, literally.

And I know what God cares for by what He made: a moving Earth; a comprehensible Cosmos of space and time, at least on the macro scale; great things appearing in shabby settings; treasure in earthen vessels; lots of beetles; and infinitely more real numbers than round numbers.....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Even under modern astronomy, it is proper to say "Sun, stand thou still," since movement is measured relative to the observer."

John Médaille, er no. When a miracle maker adresses what must be done, he is not using figurative language.

If Earth was what needed to stop rotating, Joshua was incorrect to adress the sun and the moon.

Furthermore, supposing it were Earth that stopped (this was noted by St Robert Bellarmine in his process against the book of Galileo, 1616, where Galileo attended not as accused of heresy but as accused of having written a bad book and as defendant of his book) there would have been no movement perceptible in the Sun if Earth had also stopped short in its annual movement (as the Heliocentrics suppose) but there would have been a movement perciptible over the time of a "whole day" in the Moon.

John Médaille, "The one the Church tells me to use. I am a man living under obedience; I don't get to choose which Catechism sets the norm for the Church."

I suppose you mean that horror of CCC?

When I converted, it was not yet there. I used five catechisms, none of which called the Church "semper reformanda".

Mark Stahlman " Guenon was, by many accounts, functioning as a "spy" with his attempts to "infiltrate" the SUFI orders (none of which alters his apostacy) and, even if DANTE was a "Thomist" does that rule out him also being a TEMPLAR (and a "Catharist" devoted to Parfait-style movements/initiations) . . . ??"

Supposing Dante was a Templar, though this is NOT borne out by his situation in life (Templars were not just esoteric before they got condemned, they were also esoterics within a closed military-social and paramonastic context), this does not mean his books are books of Templarian esotericism.

If they had been, they would have been condemned.

Guénon, who was as you said a Sufi (yesterday I was actually too tired to recall the word and chose Derwish as a close enough substitute, I had gotten an entry to sleep in where passage was going on many times same night), was above all an esoteric of initiation type and as such he was, as I noted on top of page 13 as far as I can see scrambling for proofs that such and such a man he admired was an initiate esoteric too.

Poor guy.

Would he also have considered Benedict XV as an esoteric when he recomended Dante?

[On top of that, the recommendation of Dante is the real subject of the encyclical which has in bad faith been taken as a real endorsement of Heliocentrism. The Pope was making a concessive clause in very cautious words and basically avoiding the subject.]

MD ""Damned" is dialogue, not to be taken, well, literally."

Thank you!

"It is foolish literalism to think our centrality is derived from celestial mechanics or spatial location, ie, any false ideas that the Earth is physically still, central, fails to spin, orbit, or travel with the solar system around the Galaxy."

I am not concerned so much with the centrality as "locus of importance".

To a Medieval, the inmost nook of the universe, the inmost corner of Hell, is the centre of the Earth. We are 6000 km and some more above that spot. We are also much further than that below the stars. Yet our destination is - if we get right - not the centrality of Hell, but the perifericity above the stars.

"Nevertheless, we are central as the sole [so far] locus of consciousness and the site of the Incarnation."

So Heaven above the stars is not a "locus of consciousness"? Our Lord and Our Lady are not enthroned up there? Stars and planets are not "loca of consciousness" insofar as angels guide their orbits?

I don't think so.

As to Locus of Incarnation and Redemption, the point is not so much centrality as fixity. God the Father looks down on the Cross of Calvary with utmost satisfaction and honour - would he want it to spin around like a football?

"And I know what God cares for by what He made: a moving Earth; a comprehensible Cosmos of space and time, at least on the macro scale; great things appearing in shabby settings; treasure in earthen vessels; lots of beetles; and infinitely more real numbers than round numbers....."

A moving Earth is hardly sth you know.

It is something you have been told that "we" know, and you have identified yourself to that "we".

And Cosmos is actually more comprehensible, as in pointing in its material and visible parts more directly to God and angels if Earth is still and Universe is moved around us and sun and planets get their sometimes very florid orbits from angels guiding them, since merely bodily interaction would hardly have had those effects.

John Médaille "As a surveyor, I used sidereal tables, which listed the times of sunrise and sunset. This was not an error; from the standpoint of the surveyor, it is the sun that is moving, while the theodolite is stationary."

Supposing the Heliocentric theory were true, nevertheless in human knowledge for one thing it is not ingrained yet in all aspects of language and for another it is simply, even if it were true, not known. So, in purely human words, the phenomenal language is not inappropriate.

However, Joshua, was he just acting like a man praying for a miracle like Naaman or was he acting like a prophet working or signalling a miracle, like Elisaeus or Elisha? I think when he spoke up to Sun and Moon, he was acting like a prophet and thus the words of the creed are involved: "credo in Spiritum Sanctum ... qui loquutus est per prophetas".

New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/11/columbus-and-joshua-imagine-christopher.html

Even Naaman was not wrong about the diagnosis, it was not a psoriasis which would have abated of itself somewhat if he had been less stressed.

But we can with utmost certainty say, Elisaeus was not wrong about which river to bathe in or how many times he should dip. Elisaeus was not getting sth backwards and God then doing it the right way. Because Elisaeus was a prophet - and so was Joshua.

John Médaille

" When a miracle maker adresses what must be done, he is not using figurative language." Exactly. It is not "figurative" language to say sunrise and sunset. Relative to the observer, that is literally what is happening. All this effort to defend a line that doesn't need a defense.

Mark Stahlman

Interesting question about the *esotericism* of Benedict XV (and, while we're at it, Benedict XVI) . . . !! <g>

I'm quite confident that "organic" LSD *was* used by "some" Popes in a version of the Eleusinian Mysteries. It was a "secret sacrament" administered by the Hospital Bros of St. Anthony -- which were "regularized" by Boniface VIII at the end of the 13th century and only disbanded at the end of the 18th (at which time their "lore" passed into the hands of the Rosicrucians/Illuminati etc).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" When a miracle maker adresses what must be done, he is not using RELATIVE language." then?

"I'm quite confident that "organic" LSD *was* used by "some" Popes in a version of the Eleusinian Mysteries. It was a "secret sacrament" "

Got that from Guénon or someone?

Mark Stahlman

No I didn't -- I have been researching this question for a few decades on my own (in my capacity as the "unofficial" historian of LSD) and, as you should know, the ESOTERICS rarely admit that they have been taking *drugs* (which are fundamental to the "insights" of the Sufis et al) . . . !!

pre-history of LSD topic posted Sun, January 1, 2006 - 4:38 PM by iona
http://tribes.tribe.net/ethnobotany/thread/5a0356c2-b179-45b4-a6a1-a5ea44e0f36f

IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV ON DANTE --
TO PROFESSORS AND STUDENTS OF LITERATURE
AND LEARNING IN THE CATHOLIC WORLD.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_30041921_in-praeclara-summorum.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Exactly.

It was cited by the Dimond Brothers as Pope Benedict XV endorsing Dante.

Your point about esoterics is very moot.

Reminds me of a similar point on Eleusinian mysteries as you mentiones but also on Platonic school.

I distrust that conclusion, I think some people who are simply too engulfed in DiaMat have failed to follow correctly the reasoning and especially if they didn't fail, freaked out when reaching the conclusions and cried out "this is too spacey, there must be drugs involved".

And Eleusinian mysteries were, this is legitimate, esoterics.

But saying such and such Popes were esoterics and using drugs as secret sacraments is going beyond known fact. It is a widereaching allegation and needs proof.

I just saw point 6:

6) Following the end of ceremonies at Eleusis after Goths destroyed the sanctuary around 400, these ergot-based initiatory practices were preserved in the Greek community in Constantinople and elsewhere.

Weren't the mysteries closed by Emperor Theodosius?

point 7:

7) Early crusaders carried a version of these ergot-based practices back to southern France along with the relics of St. Anthony the Hermit (desert father of monasticism) in the 11th century. Centered near Arles, on the east side of the Rhone, the hospice escaped the Albigensian Crusade.

I take this to be a just so story, unless you have some kind of proof.

Mark Stahlman

Proof? Does Nietzsche count . . . ?? <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nietzsche thought so? No, does not count as proof.

Nietzsche is a parallel? Well, first establish how much he is parallel.

Here is my correspondence with the Dimond brothers, it is public, as I have taken this debate to be too:

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl : On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-benedict-xv-tofrom-mhfm1-dates-29.html

[Also linked to sequels I and II of the debate, to illustrate the latter point.]

Mark Stahlman

Yes -- whatever I say on Facebook (or in my 2008 "Pre-History of LSD") is indeed *public*, however none of it is a DEBATE, which I don't do *online* . . . !! <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, in that case I have a different take on what I mean by debate.

I do consider my and John Médaille's exchanges on geocentrism, and your participation in it, as debating.

Mark Stahlman

John has been "arguing" with you -- whereas, I have NOT (i.e. simply making statements based on my own work, asking questions and pointing you to material that you were not aware of), which is *crucial* difference you might want to ponder a bit . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But you have been arguing with John and a few others who made hasty assumptions. The rest of what you did was not debating per se, agreed, but I took it in anyway.

Oh, btw, your pointing me to material I was not aware of, that should neither by you nor anyone else be taken as me needing to revise everything I have written on topic before getting anything published, as some would like me to do.

Probably part of this "research" on LSD being involved in Platonism has helped to stigmatise my work, as I am Platonic-Aristotelian in a Thomistic sense.

That is one reason why I object to it.

As to Guénon, I have heard hints both of my being into him (common point : believing in a common morality of all mankind, diverging points, he means a secret esoteric tradition, I mean the morality which Catholicism publically hits bulls eye - Catholicism, not sinful Catholics - and which other public traditions hit around with various deviations) and even been recommended to him.

I prefer, obviously, being myself recommended to simple Catholics who would not touch Guénon.

Mark Stahlman

Hans: I have *no* idea who you are or what you have done in your life. <g> Whatever "category" you fit in (by your own description or others) isn't particularly important to me. All that matters is that you have *generously* taken the time to talk with me (and many others) online -- which I take to be a blessing . . . <g>

Since LSD -- either in its "organic" form at Eleusis or in the many derivatives (during and subsequently at places like Mt. Athos) or in its "synthetic" form as invented by Steinerites in the 1930s (from which the KGB "esotericists" took it to London/Paris/SFCal in the 1960s) -- is a *fundamental* aspect of Western "spirituality" (and, indeed, the split between East and West over "mystical" practices), my advice is that you should want to better understand these developments. If you're interested, I can help you with that.

I have NO interest in "stigmatizing" you (or anyone else) but would rather suggest that my responsibility is EVANGELISM under our current *digital* conditions . . . !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you for interest.

I disagree obviously as to ergot being a part of Western spirituality.

But if you would like to make a contribution there are some parts of my writings not involving lots of debators (some of whom were involuntary such, like Chris Ferrara objected to coming on my blog) and getting those printed would be a help, not just for the good cause, bt also for my economy.

I got a certain mail from the French representative of the Swedish Study Loan System.

If you agree, before the end you will know lots more of who I am.

hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/

Mark Stahlman

Based on what you've said so far, you have NO BASIS for having any opinions about the *role* played by ERGOT (or other "hallunicinogens") in Western spirituality -- which is what I'm offering to assist you on, if you were to choose to study the topic . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, took another look at your work on lsd.

15) In 1847 at Columbia College in New York, the "Greek" fraternity St. Anthony Hall (aka Delta Psi) was formed to continue this "secret tradition" and Col. Henry Steele Olcott -- who was later join with Madame Blavatsky to form Theosophy -- was one of four 1849 pledges at Columbia.
16) In 1866 at the University of Leipzig, Frederich Nietzsche and Erwin Rohde became ergot-based initiates of a "neo-Eleusinian" group that was devoted to understanding early Greek culture by actually living as the Greeks did.

The crucial point for a misinformation about previous "tradition" is of course 15.

If a group forms to "continue a secret tradition", it is extremely easy to invent it ad hoc.

Including in this case items 6 and 7.

Otherwise I do believe tradition reflects it previous stages at any given moment, whether human or divine.

As to your statement on what I have a basis for, I retort that YOU have no basis, if your basis is that you know points 6 - 14 by Nietzsche and thus by 15 and 16.

Mark Stahlman

HA!! So, I guess you have *no* interest in actually STUDYING the topic . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I happen to prefer the topic of Geocentrism.

I also happen to think there is such a thing as common sense.

What is your evidence for parts 6 to 14 INDEPENDENTLY of 15 and 16 and thus the possibly misinformed opinion of Nietzsche?

Mark Stahlman

HA!! Still trying to *debate* me -- which is demanding EVIDENCE is all about. <g> Please read the "prologue" to my 2008 posting, which should help you to understand what I know and how I know it (hint: it doesn't come from reading books, even though I do a lot of that also) . . . !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"as a result of interviews and experiences with over a hundred people, some living and some dead, regarding the fascinating history of LSD."

And how much of it have you verified by reading documents on for instance the Anthonites?

Or, your not having done so, how much can you trust the guy who gave you that info?

Saying you heard this point many times over 40 years of interviewing only means the story is widespread in our days - not that it was exsisting when Antonites came about. Or when Hieronymus Bosch lived.

Mark Stahlman

Like I said -- #1 you commit yourself to *studying* the topic and #2 I will help you with the available documentation . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, I do not commit myself to studying.

I am debating you, if that is of any interest, I do not consider the topic worth studies if involving facts and factoids that cannot even be presented openly and as crucial before I have committed myself to studying them.