Published by The Blavatsky Study CenterOnline Edition copyright 2004.


A Closer Look at Some of K. Paul Johnson's Arguments
Concerning H.S. Olcott's Testimony about the Masters

by Daniel Caldwell
danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com



Contents

Part I:           "Mr. Caldwell is defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the Masters."

Part II :         "It is far more feasible to follow known people making documented journeys to known locations by known means than to follow unknown persons making undocumented journeys by unknown means which are allegedly miraculous in some cases."

Part III          ". . . why should one expect Olcott to be any more consistent and reliable [than Blavatsky]? . . . ."

Appendix:      Olcott's Testimony of His Encounters with Masters and Adepts


Part I:  
"Mr. Caldwell is defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the Masters."

In Strain at a Gnat, Swallow a Camel, K. Paul Johnson attempted to rebut some of my criticisms (see my work K. Paul Johnson's House of Cards?) of his thesis concerning the Theosophical Masters.  I counted numerous fallacies, mistakes and misleading arguments in Johnson's rebuttal. 

For example, one of K. Paul Johnson's arguments in Gnat (against certain criticisms raised in my House of Cards critique) reads as follows: