|1993 Police Shootings: My Response: Page One|
Reply : What a petty hair-splitter Morèno is! I have not incorrectly quoted him. I have quoted only what I found on his web site on 29th June 2005, which I got copied in hand print by Murali Krishna Yachendra to prove my fraud and given to me at Nellore in June, 2005, as I do not know the working of a computer. Whether it was "metatag" (this word is not in my dictionary) title information or not, it is there at the top of his article. If he did not want it to be a part of his response he ought not to have put it on his web site. The web site I mentioned was as found in his comments. And why he has made it a non-operable link he only can answer. His opinion that consequently it appears I am purposefully trying to misdirect people to the wrong page (which he has done on all his other responses as well) speaks much of his changing his web site. Was it because he did not want people to read his deception series that he made it non-operable? When I have faithfully recorded every word of his article and the web sites he mentioned in the article, why need I misdirect to a wrong page? GM has never complained that his comments were faked by me.
My Response: It is not my fault if Premanand cannot differentiate between actual text and metatag information. The metatag information is not part of my visible text. However, the relevant content to my metatag information has already been discussed by me. Whomever is publishing Premanand's responses, on Conny Larsson's site, is purposely failing to cite the actual link to my articles. Instead, a non-operational link is being cited. Another example of the deceit and dishonesty that I accuse Anti-Sai Activists of engaging in.
Reply : Read 'Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room' Vol.1 pages 16, 17 and 18. on whether the directions sought was for CBI investigation. As court cases cannot lead to CBI enquiry and it is the duty of the police to investigate and produce witnesses in a criminal case so his big question - why I did not file a court case if there were so many material witnesses - is irrelevant. A legal notice was sent to the Home Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi on 23.6.1993 documented on pages 3 to 6 in Vol 1 of the book "Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room". The evidence necessary for CBI investigation has been provided in the writ petition and the writ petition was admitted at the time of filing proves that I am competent to file a PIL and the writ petition contained proof necessary for the admission of the same.
The Writ petition contains only 20 affirmations and not 26 as claimed by him. I have to prove my credentials if my PIL has to be admitted. 6 to 11 are given to prove the precedence of SSB for the need of CBI enquiry. No.12 to 20 is the affirmation for seeking CBI enquiry. It is his imagination that I foresaw that my request might be dismissed and thereby tried to make as many irrelevant claims as I could. If they were irrelevant it would not have helped me to go up to Supreme Court. If my affirmations were false my writ petition would have been dismissed at the time of admission itself. Who but Morèno would fail to see this point? I have already explained that without proper evidence the writ petition would have been dismissed at the time of admission itself. But the Judge has accepted my affidavit that there was cause for admission.
Even without affidavits from the newspaper reporters the court has accepted that there was proof that the police were negligent and failed to act. In PIL it is not necessary to provide affidavits from others when the court has accepted as evidence the newspaper reports. I have not withheld any crucial information in the newspapers as I have filed all the copies of the newspapers which I could collect. Tal Brooks's book had to be cited because there were complaints of sexual abuse of students by SSB. As far as the allegation that SSB was a hermaphrodite, SSB has himself admitted that he is the avatar of Shiva and Shakti - ie. in both male and female forms.
In short though my prayer for CBI enquiry was not accepted, I have achieved fully what I wanted by filing the P.I.L. It was to get confirmed the CB-CID report on the Murders and suitable action taken against the accused mentioned there and the Supreme Court also confirmed it. The PIL was filed as we came to know that the government was stealthily planning to close the file on a report by the R.D.O. Morèno finds difficulty in accepting the reality of government intervention in processes, and would like instead to 'shoot the messenger'.
My Response: Even though Premanand knows I do not have his book, he keeps citing it as evidence. If Premanand wants to cite his book as evidence, instead of naming pages, he should give the actual text or provide screencaptures.
The Writ Petition has 20 affirmations, but affirmation 13 is broken down into 6 sub-affirmations.
Tal Brooke's claim about SSB being a hermaphrodite had absolutely nothing to do with how the Police handled the 1993 Police Shootings. Tal Brooke never mentioned anything about SSB sexually abusing students. Despite these facts, Premanand cited Tal Brooke's book (written in the 1970's) as evidence in his Writ Petition (which was totally irrelevant to the 1993 events).
Ultimately, what all this boils down to is that Premanand's Writ Petition was denied. Period. Now Premanand can try to cite all sorts of "evidence", resort to innuendos and point fingers, but the inescapable reality is that he utterly failed to convince an Indian Court of Law.
Reply : GM had better write to "The Week" if it provides no proof as to what happened on June 6th 1993 and if they do not answer take them to court. When GM claims to have read the article, he is hiding the fact that the article was authored by M.D.Riti in Puttaparthi and Bangalore and Stanley Theodore in Hyderabad. (see pages 213 to 222 Vol II of Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room. There are three Box News, the first by Jayashree Ramamohan and the other two by MDR. Here also GM has mistaken "MDR" as "MRD". Anyone who has read the article would know who is MDR. M.D.Riti is not an anonymous author and newspaper reporters are not duty bound to give any evidences to people. GM's sentence "which is probably why Premanand likes it" is his way of imagining things so as to confuse people, and typifies his frequent habit of assuming worst-case interpretations of the words of SSB's critics.
When GM states: "It is abundantly clear that the author gathered information from newspaper clippings the F.I.R and from mental imaginations" he has not mentioned from which news clippings and what mental imaginations. It was not taken from F.I.R (page 336 to 338 Vol 1). I am wondering how abundantly clear GM is on this. Just his assertion without evidence of any kind, again. He has not quoted the full sentence "and he had retired to his bedroom, climbing up the wooden stairs and to a simple dinner". It is certainly not "well known that the stairs are of cement". However, whether this ill-designed twisting, narrow stair was originally of wood or cement would surely be a major point in GM's brilliant analysis of his own imaginings and concocted deceptions to refute that Sai Baba was involved?
The statement of a police officer is very pertinent. GM has not questioned why they had to kill the victims with a shower of over 30 bullets when shooting below the torso only to injure them would have been sufficient. Then the whole incident could have been cleared up, as to whether the others were stabbed or poisoned beforehand. For a change, let GM get to the crux of matters, rather than the periphery where he sticks! GM's wish-fulfilling assumption that this poorly referenced article provided no proof as to what happened on June 6th , 1993, as he is trying to save SSB he will not see proof by genuine reasoning and all proofs would be 'poorly referenced' to him. If these articles in the newspapers did not provide proof, the law enforcement department utterly failed to examine the newspaper reporters because they did not want the truth to be brought out. If there was no iota of truth in the articles in newspapers, then the legal luminaries like Justice Bhagawati (long a Sai devotee and on the Board of the Sai Central Trust), Balakrishna Erady, Ranganath Mishra etc. would not have left them scot free without taking legal action for defamation.
My Response: "The Week" provided no references where their information came from. The author only used initials. Despite these facts, Premanand continues to defend "The Week" (the weak) article. The fact of the matter is that it is well known that the stairs to SSB's bedroom are made out of cement (Premanand even provided a picture to the cement stairs with blood on them). Whomever wrote the article for "The Week" didn't even know this basic fact. This adequately points to the lack of research in the article.
In the USA, police officers can shoot to kill if they feel that they are being threatened with a weapon. As a matter of fact, many police officers have been acquitted of killing civilians due to self defence claims. Amadou Diallo was gunned down by four police officers, who fired 41 times (hitting him 19 times) because they mistook his wallet for a gun. All four officers were acquitted. These four assailants viciously stabbed two people to death and seriously stabbed two others. They were cold-blooded murderers. The Police were obviously scared.
Once again, newspaper articles are not proof or evidence. Premanand believes that newspaper articles are proof and evidence. So if these newspaper reporters really uncovered "evidence", why isn't Premanand pushing for it to be revealed to the general public? He isn't. He just cited the newspaper clippings and left it at that.
Reply : Always more meticulous and illogical diversions to try to run away from what are truly the main points in the whole issue (Morèno's "main points" are only split hairs with the aim to mislead and cover up facts!). The BBC did not misreport the facts about me. It is true that I am the oldest member of India IBM (Ring.261). This says nothing nor does it prove anything about the information on 'The Secret Swami'. But the BBC.co.uk site was not referenced in his article. 'The Secret Swami' documentary speaks very cogently for itself with direct interview and filming, including Dr Michael Goldstein, former AP Home Secretary V.P. B.Nair, and not forgetting Sai Baba (who lied openly there that he had brought up a lingam weighing three tons - what a farce!). GM would love to throw doubt on 'The Secret Swami', but he cannot find anything of the least importance. Even Dr. Goldstein failed in his attempt to sue the BBC, because they are not amateur investigators and get their facts right to insure no legal proceedings can affect them. Just ask Dr. Goldstein himself, or the BBC! Of course, this does not mean that a BBC documentary, or any other documentary cannot make an error, but it has been one of Morèno's attempts here and elsewhere to cast a slur on 'The Secret Swami' because he says that it got a date wrong in regard to the Rahm testimony. In doing this, Gèrald Morèno's shabby intellectual dishonesty is more than apparent.
My Response: The BBC said, "...and at the age of 73 he is the oldest member of India's International Brotherhood of Magicians". I said, "...and is reputed as the oldest member of India's International Brotherhood of Magicians". In his original reply to this comment, Premanand said, "I am the oldest member in this Ring. There are hundreds of Rings over the world and I have myself met many old magicians who are much older than me" (implying that my comment was incorrect). Now, however, Premanand just said that the BBC article was correct. This makes my statement correct as well. This shows whom is engaging in "splitting hairs" and contradicting former statements. Furthermore, I did reference the BBC article. Here it is again: Reference. This shows that Premanand did not read my article. Obviously, someone is feeding him partial information. This is another instance of Premanand erroneously accusing me of not referencing my comments (which Premanand did before).
The Secret Swami Documentary does not need me to throw any doubt on it. After all, Robert Priddy threw his doubt on it by citing their poor research into the water project. The Rahms threw their own doubt on it by saying they improperly edited it. What more doubt do I need? Since it has been shown that the BBC programme did get the dates wrong, this speaks more for the "intellectual dishonesty" of the BBC than it does for me. I actually got the dates right. However, Premanand is blaming me for getting the dates right instead of blaming the BBC for getting the dates wrong. One will also notice that Premanand is casting slurs and aspersions against me. Is this the behavior of a scientist, rationalist and skeptic?
Reply : Why should the various independent writers on Ex-Baba.com and other websites contact Beatrice Newbery when the article is on me? What is surprising is that GM expects diverse people to contact persons unknown to them just in case there might be any mistakes... surprising since he doesn't ever check his own for mistakes. And why should not an article be posted for the benefit of public discussion or debate? Besides, there is no single group of 'Anti-Sai Activists' but several loose groupings with their different views and agendas, whereas there are only two in Morèno's anonymous 'group', neither of whom even dare to stand forth with their addresses or other proofs of identity or qualifications; him and Lisa de Witt! But where am I "directly accusing" anyone (other than GM) for "publishing misinformation on their sites"? (GM himself underlined the word "directly" - which again typifies most of his overblown claims). Publishing an article from a newspaper does not need any research, but when someone is criticising the article one should do real research. GM seems to imagine that he has researched even the article in The Week (let alone independent research of any kind). But GM stated that this article was authored by an anonymous person, when their names were there for anyone to see! I do not know why they should represent me except that they publish articles by me on their web site. His assumption that it is not the case is meaningless.
How can we know that he was quoting BBC.co.uk site when he has not referenced the site? And when the word 'Guru Buster' was not in his reference? BBC has telecasted a documentary titled "Guru Busters" with my co-operation in filming.
My Response: Premanand originally said that Newberry's article was incorrect and "It is also surprising that GM did not contact her (Newberry) or the newspaper 'The Independent-London' to check whether the article was without any mistakes." However, I got this information directly from Anti-Sai Sites! They published Newberry's errant article 5 years ago on their sites! Premanand is accusing me of failing to contact Newberry or The Independent-London, yet said absolutely nothing about Anti-Sai Sites publishing the same disinformation he accused me of not researching! One would think that Anti-Sai Sites are publishing factual information about Premanand. Premanand indicated this is not the case.
Once again, I fully referenced the BBC.co.uk site that Premanand is referring to. Too bad his "colleagues" didn't send him the actual reference. Here it is again: Reference.
Reply : It is good to know GM's confession that he did not reference every single point he made. As far as I can tell, I have referenced every single point I made In my complaints against the godmen which includes SSB, GM is not a relevant party because he cannot state what is his valid connection with these matters or whether he has a single qualification (not counting self-appointed amateur sleuth and fanatical defender of SSB and all his people).
My Response: It is a fact that Premanand failed to reference many of his points. I discussed this on my original articles and one can read my comments there. On my Betrayal response, Premanand repeatedly accused me of providing only 14 lines to the Betrayal letter. In actuality, I provided the Betrayal letter in full. Why Premanand overlooked these obvious facts is beyond me. Just earlier, he accused me of the same thing again. One can only lament Premanand's poor research.
Reply : So why did GM not contact Beatrice Newbery himself then? GM's previous response has been properly replied to already. He does not understand the difference in criticising me and my articles based on the articles of others, eg. Newbery. He understands only what suits him, and his purpose is clearly to mislead and create confusion (unless he is just thick, pure and simple). The mistakes he is pointing out about Beatrice and BBC.co.uk have no connection with the six murders in Sai Baba's Bedroom, except in vain to try to prove that I am a fraud (as he constantly vainly tries to prove of any number of others who criticise Sai Baba) and so 'The Secret Swami' documentary is false. Laughable! Here also he has given the wrong web site, while the site is http://www.bbc.co/radio4/factnet/itsmystory-280803.shtml
My Response: I could not find Newberry's contact information and did not get a response from The Indepedent-London. Why didn't Anti-Sai Activists verify Newberry's article before they published it on their sites 5 years ago? I never claimed that Newberry and the BBC had a connection to the 1993 Police Shootings. Where did I say that (notice the lack of a reference)? Since Premanand has trouble remembering his own words, the reason why Newberry's name came up, was because of her article regarding Premanand's lack of a formal education and experiments with mercury. Premanand also accused me of citing her, when in fact the information I cited came from the BBC.co.uk site. Again, Premanand is accusing me of one thing, when the facts speak to the contrary. The link Premanand cited happens to be the very same reference I cited on my site (the one Premanand said I did not give). The only difference between our links is that mine works and his does not! One will also notice how Premanand is casting slurs and aspersions against me (again).
Reply : If GM did not get the information from Beatrice Newbery why did he reference her article and not BBC.co.uk site? In fact, BBC.co./Radio4 did not investigate nor broadcast 'The Secret Swami'. It was BBC Channel 4 which first broadcast 'The Secret Swami'. The mistakes GM has pointed out in the articles by BBC Radio have nothing to do with BBC channel 4, nor are these mistakes grave ones (i.e. omitting the word 'Association' from the Federation of Indian Rationalist Association or the word 'Indian Committee' from the 'Indian Committee for scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal'. GM is evidently very hard up for points with which to obfuscate and hair-split further!)
My Response: Premanand accused me of citing Newberry, when in fact I cited the BBC.co.uk article. Why didn't he ask me before he made that assumption? Just earlier, Premanand accused me of failing to reference the BBC.co.uk article. Here, however, Premanand is making reference to the very same BBC.co.uk reference I cited! The issue of the Secret Swami in association with my BBC.co.uk/radio4 reference is irrelevant. I did not use this reference in assocation with the Secret Swami. It was in reference to Premanand! Another fact overlooked. Those who care to understand these facts will clearly see the truth. One will also notice how Premanand tried to misrepresent the actual link to the BBC Radio site. Premanand gave the url as, "BBC.co./Radio4". The actual link is, "bbc.co.uk/radio4/" clearly showing that the Radio4 site is located on the "BBC.co.uk" site (the same site to the organization that broadcast the Secret Swami documentary).
Reply : GM munches the same thing over and over again in each of his deception series article with no relevance to the specific subject in each of my articles. The fellowship given to me by NCSTC, Department of Science and Technology Government of India though without degrees would prove that I am as good as if not better than a degree holder. I am invited to participate in the 3rd National Teacher's Science Conference to present my paper to chart out the curriculum for children. I am wondering why GM considers that without degrees no one can know or learn things but for him, who has no known education either. To read a post mortem report one does not need to be a forensic expert. These reports are for evaluation by jurors, judges and other persons without forensic qualifications. I have also met and discussed with Dr.C.P. Venkatanarayana and other doctors who conducted the post mortem. There is no need to mention to a forensic expert or to get a sworn affidavit from a forensic expert as the post mortem report itself is clear. The crucial information is in the post mortem report itself I have not wondered why my prayer for a CBI enquiry was dismissed. I only wonder why, although the High Court and Supreme Court accepted the report of CB-CID, the Andhra government did not take action according to their directions but closed the case on a confidential report by the RDO which was rejected by the courts. GM states that CCMB is a modern biology centre whose research can be used by forensic centre, it is necessary that the scientists in CCMB should know about forensic tests. DNA finger printing was necessary to test the blood on the floor to see if the blood was from Radha Krishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan as hundreds of bottles of blood were missing in SSB Superspeciality Hospital at Puttaparthi at the time of murders.
What is the need to mention Dr.P.M. Bhargava's name when the writ petition is for CBI enquiry? I have not stated that I have no education though I did not attend schools the fact is I have learnt things for my work and have a library of about 70,000 books. What education does GM happen to have and, if any, when and from where? Why does he never answer us on this?
My Response: When Anti-Sai Activists praised Premanand as being "Honored by the Indian Government with its highest award for scientific values, campaigns against Sai Baba" (Reference), Premanand did not deny this statement was false. However, I conclusively proved that statement was false. Premanand wants to trivialize this fact. In other words, Premanand was defending a fabricated statement.
One must remember that Premanand's conclusions, regarding the Post Mortems, are not supported either by the content located in them or by the Examiners themselves. Premanand claimed that Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan were poisoned with potassium cyanide and they did not die from stab injuries. Neither of these speculations are supported by the Post Mortem reports. Consequently, if Premanand believed that SSB's 2 aides were poisoned and did not die from stab injuries, then why did he fail to get affidavits from the Examiners that said just that? By making these guesses, Premanand pretended to be a forensic expert. He isn't.
Premanand should supply us with the references to support his claim that DNA tests were done. He should also supply the appropriate references that support his claim that "hundreds of bottles of blood were missing" from the SS Hospital. Once again, Premanand failed to cite actual documents or references. If Bhargava would have come forward and submitted an affidavit that supported Premanand's conspiracy theory, this would have strengthened his case for a CBI inquiry. Premanand failed to cite any reputable source who supported him and his erroneous conclusions. Why?
I am not the one who wrote a book on SSB. Nor am I the one speculating on what various documents mean. Since Premanand wrote a book, and speculated on the meaning of various medical documents, he is posing as an authority. Consequently, his education is 100% relevant to this discussion. Premanand has no known education as a forensic expert. A fact he conceded to. Nor did Premanand seek out the advice of a forensic expert to support his conclusions (he failed to cite any). Consequently, Premanand played the role of a forensic expert, clearly trying to mislead others with his uneducated speculations and assumptions. Premanand may want to distract from these facts by questioning me and my education, etc., however, I am not the one who wrote a book and made speculations about medical documents. Premanand did. So the burden of proof is on his shoulders, not mine.
Reply : Obviously GM is no forensic expert - no need to tell us - but he does make blind assumptions (including about the forensic issue) based on newspaper articles and documents he has commented on in respect of the post mortem reports! He has not yet shown that his replies and responses are based on sound evidence of any kind. GM's replies and responses prove that he is making blind assumptions. Since he is not a forensic or even medical expert of any kind, why did GM question the doctor's finding on the post mortem report of Radha Krishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan when the doctor wrote "would appear" while on other 4 reports the statements were specific -"died of shock? This was blind assumption when he has not checked other post mortem reports of Dr.Venkatanarayana whether he writes "would appear" on every post-mortem report?
My Response: Earlier, Premanand made the case that one does not need to be a forensic expert to read the content to the Post Mortem reports. Now, however, Premanand is contending that one needs to be a forensic expert to read these reports. It is of little wonder that Premanand has rightly developed a reputation as a wishy-washy and duplicitious critic. Premanand said, "he has not checked other post mortem reports of Dr. Venkatanarayana whether he writes "would appear" on every post-mortem report". Premanand should supply us with the necessary documentation that supports his contention that Dr. Venkatanarayana does not write "would appear" on other post mortem reports. Once again, Premanand expects us to blindly believe him.
Reply : 'Terribly redundant' is certainly a fitting description of how GM's articles and his website will be viewed more and more by readers. Stating that I "resort to bloated exaggerations", GM thus makes a huge point of me counting the materials of his website differently to him! But I have hard-copied about 1000 pages! This includes the materials GM now wants to see as irrelevant to his articles (googles and forum caches and screen captures click here materials and references he has quoted without which his articles are not actually complete). Is not GM's irrelevant and irreverent point-making what is really 'terribly redundant'? On the BBC.co.uk/Radio 4 site they report: "the irreverent Mr.Premanand", Newbery also said, "his acts become increasingly irreverent". The site is not BBC.co.uk and the correct site I have quoted earlier. GM has not quoted fully the sentences which would have explained why she called me irreverent. She called me "irreverent Mr.Premanand, India's leading Guru buster", because I was fighting the gurus who are revered by many and exposing any character who pretend his magic tricks are miracles. How could GM have failed to realise this, even while blinded by his own negative and destructive agendas? Whereas, Beatrice Newbery is very clear. GM has suppressed the parts of the sentence "over the years, his acts have become increasingly irreverent, ridiculing every trickster by name from the smallest "baba" upwards. Blind, gullible reverence for his badly flawed guru has got GM into an untenable and relentless fix.
My Response: First of all, I never contended that my google caches and screen-captures are "irrelevant". They are totally relevant to my site. However, Premanand originally claimed, "I have copied about thousand pages of GM's vilifying articles..." Premanand contended I wrote "about a thousand" articles. I have not. Premanand is now trying to subtly change his wording. Now he is claiming that he has "hard copied about 1000 pages" (leaving off his previous claims that these 1000 articles were my "vilifying articles").
Thanks to Premanand for providing Newberry's full sentence. Not only did she say that Premanand was "irreverent", she also accused him of "ridiculing" others. As one can see, from Premanand's responses, he'd rather resort to ridicule than factual information.
Reply : GM's comments were incorrect. The question is about the truthfulness of GM's former statement: "Basava Premanand was thrown out of school at the age of 12 due to political dispute in which his parents refused to fill in a religion or caste on his school application form". My being thrown out of school had nothing to do with having originally "refused to fill in the religion" as start of "a rebellious school career", as GM tries to suggest.
GM wants to class me as 'home taught' but this is not the same as "imaginative schooling at home". But his assumptions which I have quoted above may lead one to believe that I never went to school. It has been posted that GM was himself a college dropout, can he deny this with adequate proof? His comments about me are only derogatory arguments ad hominem, while they also incorrectly mix up two incidents as one. Moreover they are irrelevant to the specific article.
My Response: First of all, those are not my comments. Those are Newberry's comments! Consequently, I did not "suggest" anything. I simply duplicated information that was dispersed on Anti-Sai Sites for the past 5 years. I did not say that Premanand had an "imaginative schooling at home". Newberry said that. Premanand cannot even remember the content to Newberry's article. The claim about me being a "college dropout" was originally made by Reinier Van Der Sandt. Reinier is the same man who fully admitted to viewing child pornography on the internet! I have also documented his many lies and shameful online behavior and attacks. Premanand is associating himself with Reinier. People are now going to question Premanand's associations. Amusingly enough, Premanand attacks me and then accuses me of ad hominem attacks.
Reply : When GM states that he, "did not say Premanand had psychological disturbances", what did he then mean when he authoritatively stated "exposing himself directly to toxic mercury fumes (which can cause psychological disturbances)"? By this he is making a strong kind of unfair and wholly unreasonable and false implication against me. This can be seen to be his method through and through.
It is a fact that mercury poisoning can cause not only psychological disturbances, but also kidney problems and death. Has GM verified whether I was unaware that mercury is a poison when he "imagined that is his fault for not properly educating himself (despite receiving home schooling from a B.Sc., teacher up to the B.Sc., standard." Does this not prove that with GM's wild imaginings going reverse as his main purpose is to create confusion to show that I am worse than an ordinary illiterate who is trying to expose SSB without any base? This has no relevance to the subject of the article "Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room". At least illiterates have more common sense.
My Response: Where did I say that Premanand suffered from "psychological disturbances"? I never said that. Premanand is making inferences based on what I said. I simply made a statement of fact, i.e., exposure to mercury can cause psychological disturbances. I never said that Premanand had psychological disturbances. Although I am beginning to wonder if he has "reading disturbances". Funny enough, Premanand confirmed my original statement by conceding that mercury does, in fact, cause psychological disturbances! Something he was not willing to concede to in his first response. Notice how Premanand accused me of trying to make the case that he is "worse than an ordinary illiterate". I never said that or implied that. Premanand makes stuff up and then acccuses me of saying things I never said. To me, this does not sound like a "rational" and honest reply.
Reply : Why does GM guess that I am not aware of this basic fact, despite being educated up to the equivalent of a B.Sc standard? Almost every adult person nowadays knows that mercury is a dangerous poison. But GM is extremely hard up for any points to score! When he has stated that he does not pretend to be making blind assumptions based on pictures and documents many years after the fact, to which he was never personally present. Anyone can find that all GM's replies and response are blind assumptions and, just like his guru, he does not practice what he preaches.
My Response: Premanand refuses to admit that he was directly exposed to toxic mercury and its fumes. Premanand said, "In my accident of breaking the thermometer, I had collected and poured it in a glass bottle and a stopper and the glass pieces of the thermometer were kept in an aluminium plate which was available then and kept under the lab table." No matter how you view it, Premanand was directly exposed to mercury. Premanand repeatedly (admittedly) experimented with mercury on aluminum and aluminum coins. Premanand can continue to rant and rave about me, but none of his rantings and ravings are going to change these relevant facts.
Reply : When GM states that 'Premanand just admitted he handled toxic mercury by collecting it and pouring it into a bottle', he is guessing without knowing how I had handled it, amusingly enough! The same goes for: "undeniably, there were still traces of mercury on the broken thermometer and on the aluminium plate". As if mercury sticks on the glass, a fact that even GM should know! GM has not questioned me as to how I handled mercury when he stated that I was directly exposed myself to the residual mercury when he cleaned the aluminium plate (which held the broken thermometer). Without being present how did he guess that I was directly exposed? Why did he state 'residual mercury' when it was only unseen globules of mercury when he does not know how I handled the mercury. This happened more than sixty years ago.
My Response: Once again, it is apparent that Premanand does not properly understand mercury's toxicity. It is irrelevant how Premanand handled the mercury. He was exposed to mercury and its fumes, which are poisonous. Premanand said he: 1) Broke a mercury thermometer; 2) Collected the mercury and poured it into a bottle; 3) Put the broken glass pieces (from the mercury thermeter) on an aluminum plate; 4) Was told to scrub the aluminum plate by his father and 5) The tamarind reacting with mercury produced a type of powder on the aluminum plate. Despite all these known facts, Premanand keeps insinuating he was not exposed to mercury! That is why I rightly contend he does not have the proper scientific understanding regarding mercury.
GM stated: "unlike Premanand, I have enough scientific knowledge to know better than to expose myself to known poison that can be absorbed through direct contact and through inhalation". Yet GM has not explained how he would react when the mercury is shifted from a thermometer or a bottle. Does he mean to say that he was not exposed to mercury so far? When the research done in the US states that people who go for Indian Medicines which contains more mercury all Indians would have been psychologically affected. If this is true most of the people who are treated with Indian medicines going to godmen men like SSB are psychologically affected? At NIMHANS, Bangalore, I am informed that many of the patients are SSB's devotees."
Reply : When GM poses as an expert in mercury poisoning, he should know how much mercury can cause poison by absorbing through direct contact and through inhalation and, if he held to science, he would have tried at least one experiment to prove that my findings was false. Most probably, GM has mercury-silver amalgam fillings in his teeth, but does he know how much of this is released into his body daily through chemical reactions in the mouth, or when his dentist bores into it making mercury gaseous? Experiments have shown the considerable amount involved in many cases, and therefore the use of mercury amalgam is no longer advised in many countries and major compensations are now being paid even by the government in some countries to dental assistants who have handled silver-mercury amalgam for decades. The toxic effect of inorganic mercury is therefore not so immediate and great that whole populations can have used it for most of the last century in dental amalgam, which is not entirely stable and which is subject to many chemical agents from food.
My Response: Premanand is arguing my point nicely. Mercury is highly toxic, even in small doses. There is a plethora of evidence that ties physical illnesses to mercury amalgam fillings (Reference).
Premanand is once again making claims without providing references or documentation about alleged SSB devotees who are being treated at NIMHANS. If SSB devotees are so mentally unstable, what does this say about Premanand's good friend Robert Priddy (who was a devotee for 17/18 years)? Premanand made the inference, not I.
Reply : What GM refers to is not a comment but what was really happening on a book presented to a girl by SSB whom SSB had promised that he will get her married to one Murali and knowing the plan of SSB he married another girl. Still she believed that Murali would divorce his wife and marry her because of SSB's promise. I was invited to their house by the parents to counsel her and explain the formation of grey matter forming on the book. It was found that it was herself doing the trick. The book had an aluminium cover. GM's comment that "this comment only serves to fuel valid doubts regarding Premanand's scientific knowledge regarding mercury" is misplaced. It proves the fraud played by godmen on his or her followers who believe that what is forming is vibhuti. She had some psychological problems too. How can anyone know of any incident of allergic reactions, irritation or toxicity due to ingestion or inhalation from the grey matter unless the persons know that it is not vibhuti but a chemical?
My Response: I do not know where Premanand got this story from. I am talking about vibuthi manifestations on glass frames, not books with aluminum covers.
At residences where this vibuthi phenomenon occurs in abundance, everyone eats it as "prashad". I myself have eaten it. I have yet to see anyone get sick from eating this vibuthi. As a matter of fact, many people claim they were cured of various ailments by eating it (which have been recorded in SSB-related books and testimonies on the internet). Even Robert Priddy related a miraculous healing (in his book, Source of the Dream) when a small speck of vibuthi fell on the nose to his paralyzed cat and it was instantly cured.
As GM stated my "speculation" does not fail on any counts to explain vibhuti manifestations (most of which forms on glass and not on frames). How vibhuti seems to have formed is explained in the article itself which GM has quoted earlier in his first reply referenced in his comments (exbaba..com : deception October 2004) and my reply. When he has commented on the article in Indian Skeptic explanation of miracles people may believe that he has read it fully. Faking on explanation of vibhuti forming on coins explanation (b), to the correct one is explanation (c) proves how good GM is in faking. This is what I explained in (c) vibhuthi produced from Sathya Sai Baba's photographs:
Vibhuti produced from Satya Sai Baba's photographs: Actually vibhuti does not fall constantly from the framed photographs of Satya Sai Baba. Unless one removes a portion of vibuthi sticking to the glass, this cannot be known. What is done is, ash is mixed in starch solution and sprayed on the glass, except the face. The man in whose house vibhuti is forming on the photos does not permit any one to go near them or touch them. They say that if any one touches them with an intention to verify the truth the vibhuti stops forming! What is sometimes done is that the top of the photo frame is hollow and is filled with vibhuti, while the glass is fitted loose. When the ceiling fan is switched on, the ash stored in the photo frame top flies and people think that really vibhuti is falling from the photos. This could be exposed by removing a part of the vibhuti pasted on the glass and see if it again forms there and by stopping the fan. In one house of an advocate at R.S.Puram, Coimbatore where this claim was made, I had to wait for more than two hours as there was power cut and only when power came, I was taken to the prayer room to see the vibhuti falling from the photos of the godman. When I came out the fan was put off, but I suddenly turned around to see if vibhuti was still coming from the photos, it had stopped!
My Response: Click Here to view a shrine that manifests vibuthi, amrit and kum kum in abundance. These manifestations are continual, so much so, they fill containers every day. There are several places, all around the world, where this phenomena occur (and have occurred for many years now). Premanand's explanation of vibuthi does not account for the other manifestations of amrit, kum kum, mishra, butter, flowers, fragrances and other items used in pujas. No one has proved that these people are faking these materializations. Perhaps Premanand could spend his time disproving these manifestations. That would aid his agenda greatly.
Reply : Yet again Gèrald Morèno defames Said as best he can and shows the utter lack human feeling that decency would require as a minimum. Said Khorramshahgol's replies to Morèno's mud-slinging and harassment of him speak eloquently for themselves. GM showed his usual cold-heatedness and disregard from the outset, trying as ever to cast suspicions on Said Khorramshahgol, just as he did towards many young men who stood forth to tell about - and so help to try to put a stop to - SSB's sexual abuses. How is it any of GM's business to set himself up as amateur psychologist, judge and jury to condemn Said's allegations and try to discredit him by continual evasions and infantile dirt-digging antipathy? As to hypocrisy: amazingly, GM already believed that Sai Baba was a sexual abuser, (on the FAQ of his former vishvarupa.com website where he openly declares this! Click Here). Thereby Gèrald Morèno condones and supports Sathya Sai Baba's sexual abuses through all GM's attacks on critics. Anyone without such an agenda of bitter hatefulness who reads both GM's and Said's e-mails will easily see which is the most honest and believable of the two.
My Response: I am not "defaming" Said Afshin Khorramshahgol. I have screen-captured his actual posts to validate my comments about him. It is a fact that Said (Afshin) Khorramshahgol portrayed himself as suffering trauma, due to being sexually abused by SSB. However, Afshin (la_quake) made jokes (Click Here) about masturbation, bestiality, having oral sex where there would not be "too many witnesses" and ascribing lewd, sexual comments to the Koran (despite allegedly being a Muslim)! Afshin also rubbished the much beloved Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother as a "moron"! Afshin made these posts himself. So no one is defaming him. Afshin is responsible for his own behavior and comments. Because I brought this information to the attention of the general public, I am accused of "defamation"! Despite these facts, Premanand defends Afshin's behavior and criticizes mine (which does not even come close to Afshin's)! So far, Premanand has allied himself with Reinier (a person who admitted viewing child pornography) and Afshin (an alleged sexual abuse victim who has a potty mouth and likes to make sexual jokes and derisive comments about others). If these are Premanand's associates, on his crusade against SSB, then he must share the public humiliation of their association.
Reply : Unless GM explains with documentation what he refers to as "the basic common-sense expenses" his assumption that I am trying to exaggerate the numbers will not be believed by anyone. He niggles on about so many trivial details like prices, but conveniently overlooks the central fact - that the vibuthi sold in the ashram is produced in Palani, not in any way by SSB, which devotees are mostly believe and left to imagine. GM is to be thanked at least for informing that those who work for SSB, his Trusts and his sales department are on paid salaries. I thought the SSB devotees staying in Prasanthi Nilayam were doing voluntary Seva to their god.
GM's statement affirms what is well known, that vibhuti is sold inside the ashram. Many hundreds of kilos have been sold there. This means this vibhuti is not created by SSB. When the name of the recipient is clear on the delivery order issued by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax authorities, what is the need for me to specifically mention to the ashram or to the vendors? Yes this is the way GM tries to confuse readers, when the scanned copy is published in my book, 'Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room', page XXVIII. The sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs reflects on the ashram. Good, GM is conversant with all the things happening in the ashram. Does the ashram pay for the packing materials, storage facility, transportation costs and other related costs in supplying vibhuti to devotees? Does GM know that when SSB Trusts are registered and given tax exemptions, they cannot make profit? When he states "undoubtedly there will be some profit" why doesn't he come out as to how much profit they make, when he poses as being so conversant with every thing in the ashram?
By comparison, I do not benefit from the tax, duty and other financial exemptions that SSB's institutions do, because I am not a registered Charitable Trust. The price of 'Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room' even now is still Rs. 400/- and 40 US $. The life members still get 50% discount. The price Rs. 150/- and 15 US $ was the prepublication scheme which is published in the Indian Skeptic. Here GM does not want to calculate the travel expenses for investigation and collecting documents, printing charges, thick paper cost having used 80 gram paper and imported art paper for the photographs and imported art board for the cover, binding charges, postage which is not charged to subscribers, the type-setting charges, making of master plates for printing 50% discount to the Indian and overseas life members etc. I hardly get 5% on the sale of my books. I am wondering why GM instead does not question the high price charged on SSB books when sold overseas. While posturing as a "neutral researcher", why does GM never make the slightest criticism of SSB and his organisation, while being niggardly in all things concerning SSB's critics?
Calculating all these expenses I did not make any profit. The number of copies printed is there on the book as per the declaration U/S 18 of P& R Act 1867 which any one can see. But why is this declaration not there on SSB books when SSB collects the price as donations? It is GM is hiding and no sales were made at US$40/- except less than 10 copies. Yes what has SSB to hide when I calculated 3.5 lakhs profit on each lorry load without giving the real expenses when his is a charitable Trust enjoying all tax exemption? According to law in India the accounts of Charitable Trusts are public and any one can ask for the income and expenditure a/c and Balance sheet.
My Response: It is a fact that the Ashram vibuthi is sold in high quality white paper sachets, enveloped with a plastic, monogrammed cover that is held together with thread. Premanand's comments only dealt with bulk vibuthi and none of the packaging material. He never made mention to the transportation costs, the storage costs and the paid salaries to the people who package it. Everyone knows that SSB does not materialize this vibuthi. Why would they package it in public if they were trying to mislead others? I forgot that these Ashram attendents are being paid a salary (as opposed to Seva Dals who render free service at SSB's ashram). Any perceived profit that I foresaw, would be adequately consumed by the salaries being paid to these workers. Since Premanand is claiming that the Ashram is making a profit, it is upto him to prove it. He needs to find out how much the paper, monogrammed plastic, thread, transportation, storage and salaries cost and then formulate his calculations accordingly. He has not done so. Therefore, his calculations are misleading and inaccurate.
Premanand cannot escape the fact that he tried to price gauge foreigners. He can speak around this issue as much as he likes. His arguments are unconvincing. Click Here to view the prices to books sold at the Sathya Sai Baba Book Center of America. One will notice that the price range is mostly around US $4 - US $9. Premanand is trying to sell his soft-bound book for US $40. This price is comparable to purchasing an unabridged, hard-bound, Collegiate Dictionary or full color art books (which can easily be checked on Amazon.com: Reference). Premanand said he only sold a measly 10 books for US $40. I guess not very many people are interested in all the "evidence" he has to offer.
Reply : I have already mentioned some of my expenses and any one can check up whether these expenses are necessary from the shops who do the printing work in India. It is certainly true that GM has made more than one mistake (omission) in his calculations! GM admits I made no profit from my book, but he wants to insinuate that I am a profiteer. I can set the price as I see fit, and the public can buy it or not, as they wish. I also happen to be engaged in much charitable (unpaid) work, but GM has not researched that. Another major problem about SSB's finances is that he collects massive sums through deceit and extracts donations from people on on false premises, pretending to 'materialise' valuable objects which are shop bought (watches, jewellry etc. etc.) and by lying that every single 'naia paise' goes to the poor, when millions go to finance education for sons of rich families, erecting buildings for himself (which to Indians are palaces) or white elephant museums etc. only to glorify his own name.
If any one wants any copies of my expenditure, if GM can provide me with the latest income and expenditure a/c and balance sheet of the SSB Trusts, I can provide mine, though I am not legally bound to give it to GM. The SSB trusts are legally bound to give it to anyone who asks and supplies the copying charges paid. Will they supply it for GM? If so, will GM supply it for the "Public" he keeps on referring to as being so deserving of the truth?
Who finances Gèrald Morèno's expensive web pages? Who finances his exhaustingly long days and nights at the computer trying to spread perverse disinformation and slander in the public sphere? What profits is he making and from whom? Why does GM have to attack me with a false charge of profiteering? Is it not simply because he wants by any conceivable false means to defame me so as also to imply - most illogically - that this also affects my judgements on the murders issue?
My Response: That's correct, Premanand has "mentioned" his expenses. He has not supplied anyone with any proof to his actual expenses.
My previous response adequately discusses Premanand's price gauging.
Premanand needs to supply the general public with factual data and documents that support his claim that SSB is extracting money on false premises. Apparently, very few people believe him (only 10 foreigners bought his book for US $40).
Although the SS Trust does spend money on museums and other types of buildings, they also finance hospitals, colleges, water projects and schools. Premanand only tells one side of the story. Since devotees are still making contributions to the SS Trust, they obviously do not see any fault in the way the SS Trust is spending their charitable contributions. The SS Trust is also giving back to devotees what they have given to SSB. Afterall, they are SSB's devotees and they want to visit Sai related museums, etc.
Premanand is also repeating another charge made against me by Reinier Van Der Sandt. No one is financing my web pages. My websites are not "expensive". I am spending about US $184 per year on my domain-names and web hosting. That's about US $15 per month. I do not make any profit from my site, nor do I request or receive any type of donations. Futhermore, who is financing the "expensive web pages" to Anti-Sai Sites? What profits are they making and from whom? Anti-Sai Sites have been on the internet much longer than mine and there are no less than TWENTY TWO of them. Why does Premanand erroneously contend that I am being "financed" and making "profits" off of my webpages yet does not question who is financing and how much profits are being made off of Anti-Sai Sites? A perfect example of Premanand's bias.
Reply : My book is not out of print, as GM well knows already and copies are readily available from me, so why the deceit? Why does GM hide behind Priddy's out-dated statement (after the first edition was sold out) which he made before he knew it was reprinted? Since GM pontificates on my views in this book without even having read it, this is a most excellent reason for him to buy it. He can't find my facts in the Collegiate Dictionary, however cheap or discounted it may be on offer! Incidentally, Mr. Priddy also now positively accepts that most of my views as to many details of the murders incident are better-informed than his were, for he states that he naturally recognises that I was much more closely involved at the time than he was and have filled in many gaps in his knowledge of the issue. (Just ask him!). As SSB is the person dealt with in my book, GM should try to get a letter from him to prove factually that my book contains a conspiracy theory! Good luck! If GM wants to prove that my book is a conspiracy theory he will first have to read it in full, which he refuses to do! The full book comes to 872 pages. His shabby intellectual probity is exposed for all to see! The references on the internet given by GM do not come to much compared to the book. I have not asked him to spare 40 US $ to purchase my book. It is easy to understand that GM has no employment because of his constant, daily web activity - yet his slick, costly website must be funded somehow, and he is not short of funds for series of international phone calls (which he denies making, despite the evidence). If he is researching on the book to try to refute it, he should pay up for it, or perhaps get backers to fund it. There must be someone among the alleged '20 million followers' GM claims to know about who would contribute?
My Response: It is very important to point out that Premanand is still accusing me of making international phone calls to solicit my site. I already denied this accusation once and will deny it again. Premanand just said that there is "evidence" that I made international phone calls. Where is it? Of course, this puts Premanand in a tenuous position. He claimed that he supplied "evidence", in his book about the 1993 Police Shootings, against Sathya Sai Baba. Now, he is claiming he has "evidence" about me making international phone calls. Where is the evidence? I think everyone would like to see it. Until Premanand can provide this "evidence", he will be seen as a liar, a deceiver and a fraud skeptic. This is the inescapable reality. I am publishing that I have never made international phone calls to anyone, under any pretext, at any time (past or present) to solicit or mention or advocate for the content on my site. Premanand has an opportunity to expose me as liar with his "evidence". Can he do it? No he can't. Because if he produces any sort of documentation (which I surely investigate), one can be certain that the only person who will end up being publicly exposed as a liar is him. The natural ramifications of this will mean that his "evidence" against SSB is simiarly fabricated.
Premanand also accused me of being "unemployed". Where is the evidence for this assumption as well? I assume Premanand's "evidence" is in the same gutter where he got his "evidence" against SSB and my "international phone calls". Is this the behavior of a skeptic, rationalist or scientist of any integrity? No it isn't. And it is about time that the general public see exactly the type of behavior and blind accusations that Premanand engages in. He is actually doing much more damage to his own reputation than I can ever do.
If Premanand believes that my "slick and costly" website is somehow being funded, then this invariably means that the TWENTY THREE Anti-Sai Sites that are on the internet are similarly being funded:
Robert Priddy's Sites:
Reinier Van Der Sandt & Andries Krugers Dagneaux Sites:
Conny Larsson's Site:
M. Kalkan Site:
Massimo Isolica Site:
Furthermore, Robert Priddy's comment about Premanand's book being "out of print" is not "outdated". Priddy made that comment on May 18th 2005 (just 4 and half months ago)! So why would Priddy say this, except to be deceitful? Premanand should supply us the proof that his book was reprinted after May 18th 2005.
Reply : There is no need to cite any forensic experts when the post mortem reports itself are published in the book 'Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room' on pages 347 to 357 of Vol I. When GM arrogantly asserts: "Anyone with any sort of reasoning faculty will see how Premanand is pretending to be a forensic expert and jumping to conclusions without knowing other relevant information that could alter his perceptions considerably." By the maxim 'by oneself one knows other', this seems to be a telling description of GM's mentality and behaviour, but let anyone be the judge who cares to study his inconsistencies, baseless assumptions and guesses with undocumented allegations.
Whether I speculated or GM is speculating can be known from my replies. GM's statement that, unlike Premanand, he cannot (and will not ) draw conclusions about these pictures because he is not (and does not pretend to be) a forensic expert is misplaced when he is publishing his responses drawing all kinds of conclusions around the pictures etc. …He also stated: "but I simply do not have the time to post many pages about his numerous speculations." I have never asked GM for his opinions and if he is going to research my book, he will have to find the time required. He has wasted 90% of his time in irrelevant sentences, and the rest 10% in twisting facts. Does this not amount to "shamelessly spreading untruth"?
My Response: I think my previous comments show whom is shamelessly spreading untruths and making "baseless assumptions" and "guesses".
Readers will know whether or not I drew my conclusions based on conjecture and inexperienced and untrained observations. Even Sai Baba and the legal luminaries behind him have never come forward to claim that or anything like it. I have posted copies of the books to the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court and the Parliament library and none of them have come with the accusations GM has made when he states that he has not even read the book. The courts would have taken contempt action against me if I were wrong.
My Response: If Premanand's book is so compelling, why hasn't anything come about form it and why has he only sold 10 copies to foreigners for US $40?
Photograph 1: Page 375 : if GM is assuming that the photograph of SSB's residence is not the same as it was on 6.6.1993 I request him to see the photographs published in the newspapers since 6.6.1993 as the place of murders. 1. page 57, published by 'Indian Express' on 9.6.193, where Janakiram, brother of SSB pointing at the door through which the assailants entered the Prasanthi Nilayam, where Baba was resting. 2. Page 106, 'Deccan Herald' 11.6.1993. A police man stands guard at one of the gates of Prasanthi Nilayam at Puttaparthi, where an attempt was allegedly made on the life of Sri Sathya Sai Baba on Sunday night. Most of the action reportedly took place on the left side of the first place in the section of the building seen in the photograph 3. Page 145 'The Times of India' daily 13.6.1993. Sri Sathya Sai Baba Sanctum Sanctorum at Prasanthi Nilayam at Puttaparthi, which witnessed the alleged assassination bid on the godman on Sunday last. 4. Page 214 'The Week' June 20, 1993. 5. Page 255 'Front Line' July 2, 1993
GM virtually is claiming that SSB fakes his domes as golden with mere paint! But the domes of the Prashanthi mandir are decked in gold leaf, hence metal. This is why they do not get a new coat when the mandir is re-painted at intervals. This has been the case since before 1980. It is GM who is wrong, again.
My Response: Regarding Photo 1, it doesn't matter when the photograph was taken. The domes on top of the mandir were never "covered with gold". Where is Premanand's proof that they were "covered with gold"? Futhermore the domes on the "Prashanti mandir" are not decked in gold leaf. The lotus designs on the ceiling of Sai Kulwant Hall were covered with gold leaf that was donated and applied by Buddhists. Premanand doesn't even know where the gold leaf was applied! The domes have been freshly painted and they are not even gold in color. They are pink, blue and yellow. Some people have also said that the railings in front of the mandir are gold. They are brass.
Photograph 2: Page 375: I never said what GM alleges about 'the photograph of the Baba distributing letters'. GM jumps to conclusions about them because he has not got or read my book. Read properly the caption Vol II, page 374 Picture 2. Moreover GM has nothing to say about the rest of the caption Vol.II, page 374 Picture 2. Probably he has not had food in small restaurants in Andhra Pradesh. Moreover he does not know the poor in Andhra Pradesh on whom he has cut the joke "oh, that sounds "sumptuous" to me," "To me" are the keywords here: such food would be sumptuous for many millions in India, if not for well-off, international-jetting Americans.
My Response: Okay, then let us be clear. The "sumptuous" lunch that Baba fed to devotees was fried rice and a laddhu. That's it. This "sumptuous" meal was served on dried-leaf plates, held together with tiny sticks. And you had to eat it Indian style (with your fingers, no utensils provided). If Premanand was comparing the "sumptuous" meal that SSB fed his devotees to the meals served in "small restaurants in Andrah Pradesh", he should have said so. He didn't. I gave the necessary clarification.
Photograph 4 page 376: When GM states any one can see that only the left hand side of the room was photographed, he has to produce a photograph of the full room to prove this is so. The inquest report states that the place of crime was photographed at different angles by Mr. Padmanabhan of Puttaparthi, Sai Towers. GM has not stated anything about the photograph 3, which is the entrance to the interview room. Both the sides of this room have appeared in full in this photograph. The width of the interview room cannot be more than the width of the entrance side, since the side wall of the three sides are complete. Looking to the far side of the interview room it can be known that the balance space left outside from the photograph is not enough for the chair on the 6th night or the 7th morning of the murder. The dispute is not whether anyone who had ever had an interview, knows that SSB's chair is located on the far right hand side. (Actually it is fairly central, somewhat to the right of centre! Another 'convenient inaccuracy' by GM!) But why is it not there on the photograph? GM claims to know so much of the residence but he has not mentioned what photograph 3 shows or whether photograph 4 is the private interview room where individuals are invited.
My Response: When I had my interview in 1988, SSB's chair was located on the far right-hand corner in the interview room. Even if the chair was located near the center-right, the picture that Premanand commented on, only showed the extreme left-hand side of the interview room. As a matter of fact, it even cut short the doors to the private interview room. Consequently, Premanand's comment about SSB's chair not being visible was made out of ignorance to this fact. What else is he ignorant of?
Who says that there is no way to determine that the small, brown, stick like object in the picture was a metal rod? It should be in the inquest report. As it is not there in the inquest report or in the police verification report of the crime site because this was arranged after the filing of the inquest reports. No one had broken open the door here as it was the door to the bed room of SSB that was alleged to have been broken open by the police in the F.I.R. Splintered wood cannot look like a metal rod. GM's assumptions "once again, no one knows for certain" is another assertion to confuse people. As he is apparently claiming to be very familiar with the rooms, he had not said anything about the door in photograph 4 at the far end as to where it leads. Whether to the stair case or the private interview room where individuals are invited for private personal hearing. In fact, it leads to the private interview room.
My Response: Premanand said "looked like" a metal rod. It doesn't look like a metal rod to me. Premanand has no proof it is a metal rod. That is Premanand's speculation. I had a private interview, in the room that Premanand is referring to, in 1988. Just because I didn't comment on it, Premanand is saying I didn't know. More shameless accusations against me by Premanand.
Why GM has omitted any mention of photographs 5 and 6, he has not explained. Is it not because the comments are true?
My Response: Photo 5 is the picture to the cement stairs that "The Week" said were wooden. Something does not look right with Photo 5. One can see a distinct line running from top to bottom on this image. The left hand side to this line is darker than the right hand side. The handrailing that is on wall is abruptly cut off and one can see a "curling" to a second image. Furthermore, at the bottom of the image, there are sections where the blood stops at the "line" and virtually no blood is seen on the other side. Check for yourself: Photo 5. Consequently, Premanand (despite analyzing the photo) did not not give a reason for the unusual appearance to this photograph.
Photo 6 has two descriptions. In the first description, this photo is supposed to be the stairway with the doors closed. Actually, it is a picture of knives. The knives had obviously been handled and cleaned and arranged on a table. Again, Premanand sees blood where there is none.
Photograph 7: Why did GM delete the last sentence in my comments on the photograph? Which was: "On the left side of the sofa near the teapoy there is rope and stick. In front of the sofa on the left side is a hose and a T-shaped metal instrument." He has surely left this out because he had no comments to make as to how these were found in the room.
My Response: Premanand did not refute my comments about there being no blood on the pole and pillow. That's because there is no visible blood on them. Check for yourself: Photo 7. Why did Premanand claim there was blood on them when you can't see it? Again, Premanand is engaging in mental imaginations and misrepresenting the facts. As I said before, it does not matter if there was a T-shaped object on the floor. No one knows when that picture was taken. Why would someone put wooden poles, a lamp and other miscellanous stuff on a nice sofa? Clearly, the picture was taken after someone moved things in the room. Premanand does not know what the T-shaped object was. Much less if it was made of metal.
It is just GM's way of faking the proof for his alleged 20 million SSB devotees. Interesting, too, that dozens of other devotee commentators on SSB claim for him 50 million and sometimes also 60 million. GM is also guessing wildly as to numbers, for where is a single fragment of properly documented numerical proof, let alone independent estimates? None whatever from SSB or his organisations, as usual! Any one can see the blood on the pole, a pillow with blood stains and other materials. GM has mentioned in his comments that an important fact Premanand overlooks is that he has no idea when these pictures were taken how long after the events transpired.
Why does Premanand keep claiming that I said SSB has 20 million devotees? I never claimed that. Why doesn't Premanand reference this comment and show me where I said that? I cannot say, with any certainty, how many devotees SSB has. The only person who is "guessing wildly" is Premanand. Of course, one only wonders why Premanand keeps making all of these false statements against me?
Once again, anyone who views Photo 7 will fail to see any blood on the pole or the pillow. Why believe me? Check for yourself: Photo 7. Also, one can see that the top left-hand corner to this image was color enhanced. This leaves one to suspect that whomever published these images tampered with them. A very disturbing fact.
It was not before it was stage-managed with the help of the legal luminaries and the law enforcement. With GM's assumptions that I am once again speculating - and GM has pretended to find similar problems in every single one of Premanand's descriptions. Yet unless GM can prove that my comments are false, his comments are invalid and fall dead to the ground. The very fact that he has left many of my comments unremarked proves that his main purpose is overwhelmingly to confuse the issue and mislead people as much as he can. His meaningless assumptions without dealing wholly with my comments are sufficient witness to this.
Instead of producing of other knowing relevant information that could alter my perceptions, GM is simply imagining things which have no relevance to my comments. It is true that the police failed to verify the finger prints and if they had done it, it would have proved who handled the daggers. It also would have proved the 4 alleged assailants had not handled them.
The very fact that GM has not gone beyond the photograph 7 proves that, if the people who have not read the book "Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room", they would realise the truth as explained by me. This is also proved true that - instead of touching the photographs, GM jumped to the web site mentioned by him, which is however the conclusion of other chapters, including the chapter on photographs. When he questions: "which is it?" the answer is in the inquest report. His saying that Premanand cannot make up his mind is solely in his imagination. If he were to read the book, he would find he is wrong. His use of words like "blind assumptions, poorly, shamelessly, guesses and conspiracy theory" very seriously questions his moral respectability.
My Response: After Photo 7, most of pictures are of the bodies of the 4 assailants that were shot by the police. Premanand speculated as to what those images reveal. Premanand tries to do his little forensic gig. The only problem is that the bodies were moved and the crime scene was contaminated by the police. So whatever conclusions Premanand makes, are based on a contaminated crime scene. He cannot say anything with any certainty.
Premanand (again making assumptions) said that IF fingerprints had been taken, they would have shown that the four assailants did not handle the knives. It is best that Premanand leave his precognitive abilities to the frauds that he exposes. Far be it from Premanand to act as a "psychic detective" and state, matter-of-factly, what "would have" happened had the police taken fingerprints. Premanand does not know. Premanand even contradicted himself about the fingerprints. At: home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/whomurdered.html Premanand said, "The fact that the 4 alleged assailants did not have any weapons like knives and daggers is proved by the fact that their finger prints were not found on them..." Did the police verify or did they fail to verify the fingerprints? Premanand cannot make up his mind. All these facts show that Premanand is simply giving his own version of events (a conspiracy theory) based on what he thought might have happened. However, Premanand draws conclusions, based on his non-educated and non-forensic ideas, and tries to pass them off as the truth to the unsuspecting masses.
Reply : Submitting newspapers in a writ petition and evaluating them is different. For GM it may be blind assumptions, but when the FIR stated that the four assailants stabbed them indiscriminately the police ought to have taken the finger prints on the knives, gloves etc. to prove that these four assailants attacked the four aides. They did not do it because the truth was different.
If GM thinks his suppositions are true, then he must produce documentation. My arguments mentioned above are based on the F.I.R and other records which are published in the book "Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room ". Every one has the right to have their own ideas but I cannot accept them without proof.
My Response: Premanand already stated that he believed the F.I.R. was falsified and the Police tried to cover up for themselves. Since the Police contaminated the crime scene and tried to cover their tracks, the evidence was destroyed and no one, including Premanand, knows what really happened. I cannot accept Premanand's speculations, assumptions and guesses without proof.
As I have mentioned, in GM's response, the judgement is what I wanted while filing the case. The then Prime Minister of India and the two former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court came forward with a statement about "wild, reckless and concocted allegations made by certain vested interests and people against Bhagavan Sai Sathya Sai Baba". This statement was given without meeting even one of the sexually abused students. That is why GM should contact them, as he is posing as a researcher, but does no research. But then why would sexually abused individuals or their families trust him when he is tries to undermine their accounts, slandering them viciously as liars (without any evidence) and is so uncritical of SSB and all his works? Why would they trust him when - instead of being compassionate, sensitive, respectful of confidentiality and of the necessarily gradual processes of painful victim revelation, and self-disciplined enough not to race into Internet posting - his overwhelming purpose is to repudiate, denigrate, harass, and defame? The dishonesty of the former Prime Minister and the Retired Chief Justices of India and the falsity of their statement is exposed by 'The Secret Swami' documentary from the interview with Murali Manohar Joshi, Dr.Goldstein and Isaac Tigrett. Just because GM does not like this fact does not make it false. Doubtless, even if he reads 'Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room' he would come with more of his silly, faked arguments to confuse the issues. Refer 1993 (4) scale, Supreme Court of India Records of proceedings. The two former Chief Justices of India would surely help him to trace them.
My Response: Who are the sexually abused students that Premanand is referring to? Did they attempt to file a court case first-hand? I cannot accept Premanand's statements without proof. I cannot contact them when I do not have their names or contact information. Premanand should supply this information to me.
I have not "viciously" called any alleged sexual abuse victim a "liar". Premanand should reference where I said this. The fact of the matter is that several alleged sexual abuse victims gave highly misleading and contradictory testimonies. These are facts that are fully documented on my site. These alleged victims have not even tried to file a court case, first-hand against SSB, despite being offered free "world-class legal resources". After 5 years, it is about time that their contradictory testimonies be brought to light. I have personally known about these online allegations for 5 years and refused to publicly comment on them. I patiently waited, with compassion, sensitivity, repect of confidentiality, etc., for five years.
Anti-Sai Sites have purposely given misleading, one-way and packaged testimonies about alleged victims. They refuse (and continue to refuse) to address contradictions and misrepresentations in their testimonies. My articles fills in the gaps. The only defence that Anti-Sai Activists use is to accuse me of "defamation, libel and slander".
My issues with the Secret Swami Documentary have to do with the testimonies given by Alaya Rahm and Mark Roche. After all, the entire point to the Secret Swami Documentary revolved around their allegations. Click Here to view my article about Alaya Rahm. Click Here to view my article about the Secret Swami programme and the testimony of Mark Roche. When one reads the material on Anti-Sai Sites, versus the material on my site, one can clearly see the deceit and dishonesty employed by Anti-Sai Activists.
Reply : No newspapers are responsible to give their information to any one and one has to approach the court and get information if their plea is genuine. I have not stated that newspapers are unaccountable and irresponsible. I have myself gone to Press Council of India when the pro Sai Baba group got published their statements and as they did not publish my reply the Council ordered the newspaper to publish confessing the falsehood. When SSB has not approached the Press Council of India nor the courts with many Justices on his side it proves the truthfulness of the articles. The question why SSB did not choose to approach them.
Many times SSB has approached the Press Council of India through his members and their complaints were dismissed. Why should I approach the court, when I have documented the newspaper clippings and the High Court or the Supreme Court did not comment on the truthfulness? Though SSB and the Trust members poured hatred on the press they did not approach the Council nor the courts. This would lead to the question whether the newspapers were lying or SSB and his officials.
GM may imagine himself a master of Indian Law, but it does not mean that others have to accept his claims. He has shown himself abysmally ignorant of many aspects of it already! He can ask the same question to SSB and the Justices behind him and find out why they did not approach the two forums available, and find out whether they were afraid that their petitions would be dismissed. When they were former Supreme Court Justices, no one can say that they did not know any law.
I have given enough opportunity to Gèrald Morèno to prove that my contentions and summing up on the 6 murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room are false. But he has failed terribly in his attempt, not least by adding external and irrelevant subjects, decoys, and vilifying me.
My Response: Once again, Premanand is contending that Indian Newspapers are unaccountable and unreliable because they can publish whatever they want without having to accept any responsiblity or accountability for the stories they publish. Once again, this argues my point nicely. Since Indian newspapers are not accountable for what they publish, they can publish as many anonymous and unsubstantiated stories that they choose without having to accept any type of responsiblity. Since Premanand knows this, he is exploiting this loophole to his advantage. Maybe that is the way newspapers work in India, but that is not the way newspapers work in any advanced and law-abiding country.
The fact of the matter is that Premanand is making a hard sale. He has been wholly unconvincing. He tried to convince an Indian Court of Law, through his Writ Petition, and miserably failed. He tried to convince the general public with his book and lost money by publishing it (and only sold 10 of his books to foreigners for US $40). The reality is that Premanand has made zero progress against SSB. I have already made my case about Premanand's faulty contentions regarding the 1993 Police Shootings. Of course, Premanand will never admit to any wrongdoing. He won't even admit to speculating. However, to those who have "ears to hear" and "eyes to see", I feel that the facts speak for themselves.
Even more disturbing are the patently false accusations that Premanand made against me. He has maliciously accused me of forging newspaper articles, threats, blackmail, making international phone calls, being unemployed, being a college drop-out, using a fake identity, profiteering from my websites and being secretly funded! This type of shocking behavior reflects badly on Premanand and his alleged "integrity". If Premanand is willing to resort to this type of calumny, without providing a scintilla of evidence to back it up, one is left to question whether Premanand is trustworthy and reliable. I think the facts show he is neither.