Yahoo! Groups Tips
Did you know...
You can search the group for older
messages.
|
--- In sathyasaibaba2@yahoogroups.com, Lisa
<conscientiousobjector2000@y...> wrote:
> Here is another excellent analysis by Joe Moreno of
> the contradictory testimonials given by Alaya Rahm in
> three different interviews.
>
Once again we hear this hilarious claim that an analysis by Moreno
is "excellent." Let's go through it and see where Joe Moreno is an
idiot:
> There are some serious contradictions, in these three
> testimonies, that need to be addressed.
On the other hand, these contradictions seem to exist only in Joe
Moreno's mind, since he is obviously not in full possession of the
facts.
> In Sam Young's testimony, from Seduced, Sam Young
> claims that his first personal experience with SSB
> occurred, when he was 16 years old, when he went to
> see SSB, alone with some friends in a USA group. His
> family did not accompany him during this trip.
> According to Sam Young's testimony, on Seduced, SSB
> materialized oil and rubbed it on his testicles and
> kissed him deeply and it seemed as if SSB was trying
> to make his penis erect. This testimony directly
> contradicts the testimony that Sam Young gave in
> Secret Swami, in which Sam Young said that the fist
> time he had a personal experience with SSB was when
> his family was with him in 1997.
Well, Mr Moreno, it might interest you to know that the BBC have 80+
hours of unused footage, and even the footage that they DID use was
heavily cut in order to discuss as many topics as possible within a
time limit of one hour. So when discussing Alaya Rahm's 'fist'
experience with Sai Baba (you REALLY should use a spellchecker, ya
know), neither you nor I or anybody else can confirm this or clear
it up except Alaya Rahm or the BBC, who would be in possession of
the unused footage.
Which brings me to my next point; Have you attempted to contact
Alaya Rahm or his family in order to clarify the instances which you
think are contradictions? Or are you just another lazy fellow who
spends far too much time reading our website (good of you, by the
way) and inventing contradictions?
> These two accounts, of the oiling, directly contradict
> the testimony that was published in Divine Downfall in
> which it was said, "In 1995, Sam had come to his
> father. In a private interview, he said, Sai Baba had
> 'materialised' some oil in his hand, unbuttoned Sam's
> trousers and rubbed his genitals. Jeff (This is Al,
> they are changing their names for some reason. For
> example Sam Young is Alaya Rahm) told his son he had
> had a similar experience when he first met Sai Baba at
> 18.
They are changing their names? Oh yes, and the reason for that would
be that they would have liked to have kept their anonymity at the
time? One might notice how in the Divine Downfall article their
names are totally changed, in the Seduced documentary they have
their backs to the camera, and finally in Secret Swami they have the
confidence to face the camera while relating their experiences? Any
child with even half a brain would be able to figure out that this
family have been through a traumatic experience that may cause them
to feel embarassed, thus accounting for the initial anonymity that
leads to full-blown confidence?
This idea does not occur to Mad Moreno; for him this is an
indication of something sinister on the part of the Rahms.
> 'I said to Sam, what did you think about it? He
> said he didn't feel there was anything sexual about
> it; it was like Sai Baba was doing his job. And I'd
> kind of had that experience. A doctor gives a boy an
> exam. I'd taken it as some kind of healing.'
> Thereafter, Sam said nothing about his experiences" In
> this account, Sam Young said that he didn't feel there
> was anything sexual about it (noticed he specifically
> addressed his doubts concerning the possible, sexual
> perception). Nevertheless, Sam Young said this despite
> SSB kissing him deeply and seemingly trying to make
> his penis erect, which are clearly sexual.
I must say that I wonder what Moreno is trying to get at? Is this
really about Sam/Alaya's perception of the issue, or is Moreno
actually admitting that Sai Baba made sexual advances to the lad?
Nice of Moreno to confirm in his article that Sai Baba made "clearly
sexual" advances towards Sam/Alaya.
> The other
> contradiction, given in this same account by Divine
> Downfall, is when Sam Young supposedly went to his
> father and told him about the oiling. However, in
> Secret Swami, this is not what happened! In Secret
> Swami, the family had a group interview and Sam Young
> was called separately and that is when the oiling
> occurred and it was Al who questioned Sam about the
> oiling. Not Sam approaching his father and telling him
> what happened.
Is this really that much of a big deal? Who cares if Sam went to his
father or if the father questioned him, when the unresolved issue
relates to Sai Baba molesting the boy's genitals? This is a silly
instance of Moreno and his idiotic nitpicking.
> Also the dates for this oiling story
> are different. In Divine Downfall, Sam Young discussed
> the oiling with his father in 1995. In Secret Swami,
> Sam Young discussed the oiling with his father in
> 1997.
The '1995' date could be a misprint on the part of the journalist
Mick Brown (who we know very well). Either that, or the dates as
well as the names were changed to protect identity. I'll have to
check but I'm pretty sure that there was a small print statement at
the end of the Divine Downfall which stated that names were changed
to protect identity, and I don't know if this applies to dates too.
I'll have to check it out.
> Also, in Sam Young's testimony on Divine Downfall, we
> have a revelation that Sam Young had received about
> $10,000 in cash from SSB. Nowhere else is this
> astonishing claim repeated. Why not?
It seems that Mad Moreno is clearly not as attentive as he thinks he
is. Let us note the following from the Secret Swami transcript:
-----------------
Alaya Rahm: Yeah, pure gold with real diamonds. He said, oh real
gold a hundred percent, real diamonds, the next day diamonds fall
out, the gold starts flaking and people are like what's the deal
with that, you must not be pure.
Al Rahm: Baba was giving him money; I think he gave him several
thousands dollars…
-----------------
Mad Moreno really should pay more attention instead of getting
carried away in his fantasies.
> Another contradiction occurs between Sam Young's
> testimony in Divine Downfall and Seduced. In Sam
> Young's testimony, on Seduced, Sam Young claims that
> he had conversations with other people who had similar
> experiences. Sam said he could talk more openly with
> them than he could with his dad. However, in Divine
> Downfall, the "other people" are American, teenage
> students at the Puttparthi College. In Divine
> Downfall, Sam Young said that "we didn't talk about it
> too much because of the idea that he (SSB) was
> omniscient, that he'd know what we were talking about
> and what was in our heads". In Seduced, Sam Young
> talks to other people (notice he does not specify the
> important information that they were American, Sai
> Students) and he talks to them openly. Yet in the
> second account, on Divine Downfall, they "didn't talk
> about it too much". Did he talk "openly" about it or
> "not too much"?
Another silly instance of nitpicking. Is it really to hard for
Moreno, an obvious devotee of Sai Baba, to comprehend the idea of
talking openly with devotees before realising SB's supposed
omniscience?
Moreno is still thinking that the Rahms are on a sinister mission to
spread lies by "noting" that Alaya did not reveal that the people
whom he spoke to were American. Is this a material point of the
discussion? Does it really matter if they were American or not?
And the third point is that Moreno has his historical accounts mixed
up. By referring to the Divine Downfall as 'the second account,' he
forgets that the Divine Downfall article was actually the FIRST
historical account whereas the Seduced account was the second?
Moreno repeatedly insists that we cannot take Alaya Rahm's story at
face value due to so many supposed contradictions. We may also apply
the same logic to Joe Moreno; how can we take his "excellent
analysis" seriously when he hasn't even bothered to check the facts
with the Rahms, make an issue of several non-issues, is inattentive
in the matter of bribe money as well as getting his "facts" wrong
historically?
> The last contradiction is regarding the accounts given
> in Divine Downfall and Secret Swami about how Sam
> Young divulged everything that was happening to his
> parents. In Divine Downfall, it states, " When Sai
> Baba attempted to get him to perform oral sex, Sam
> walked out for the last time, although it would be
> some months before he summoned the nerve to tell his
> parents". However, in Secret Swami, Sam did not tell
> his parents. His parents confronted him and that was
> when he divulged the story.
See what I mean? While payin far too much attention to
inconsequentialities, Moreno again fails to defend Sai Baba against
the charges of molestation. As different from Geyerhahn, this time
several more factors are involved which include oral sex, bribery
with money, jewellery and rings.
Does Moreno provide a defence for Sai Baba. Nope, I have not seen
any. Perhaps Moreno might like to explain why his "excellent
analysis" falls short of historical facts, ignorance of editing
procedures, ignorance of the testimonies, ignorance of noting the
bribe issue, and an all-round irritating attention to
inconsequential imagined "contradictions" ?
|
|
Offline