This article is based on: Previous Response

GM : Of course I knew that Premanand was not the author to this article. That is why I said, "This article talks about Basava Premanand".

Reply : Why did Gèrald Morèno not complete his statement here, as he made it before with: "who is well known for spreading lies and conspiracy theories, against SSB?" Is this not faking and slander? Where am I "well known" for what you falsely and slanderously allege, to whom, in which media etc. Put some 'click here' links if you can! I am however quite well known for exposing fakes in various media, such as onNational Geographic TV Channel, BBC TV etc? No such programme has ever been made about me as 'spreading lies and conspiracy theories'.

My Response: Notice Premanand's childish comment about asking me why I didn't conclude my sentence with "who is well known for spreading lies and conspiracy theories against SSB"? Since Premanand brought it up, he is well known for spreading lies and conspiracy theories. Soon, he will be even more well known for spreading lies and conspiracy theories. As a matter of fact, Premanand formed a new conspiracy theory about me. He is now claiming that the Sai Organization is utilizing me to spread falsehoods against him! Where is the proof that I am associated, in any way, with the Sai Org.? There is none. Premanand is simply casting his hollow slurs, trying to deceive the naive and gullible (who come a dime a dozen in the Anti-Sai Movement). However, Premanand's fallacious claims do not stop there. He also contended that I am making profits off of my websites, I am being secretly funded, I am an "adept in faking even published newspaper articles" and that he has "evidence" that that I made international phone calls to solicit my site. This proves that Premanand will resort to lies and slander to defame those who challenge him.

GM : The article was written by Tanya Datta. However, my comment was not based solely on this article. Rather, it was based on both this article and Premanand's own words from the Secret Swami Documentary. Since the quote was mistyped, I corrected it.

Reply : Why did GM not mention this in the article, if his reply was not based solely on this article? When the quote is taken from 'The Secret Swami' and GM knew it already, it is suspicious that he 'mistyped'? It ought to have been corrected before putting it on the web site. This is very like faking about the "God-man or Con-man" article ? Yes I have stated in Secret Swami 10.46.51 : "The only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths that was Sai Baba", but GM evaded to quote the earlier statement of Tanya Datta (at 10:46:42) : "Critics say police connection ensured that Sai Baba wasn’t even interviewed despite being one of the witnesses to the events that night. GM should remember that the article 'Godman or Conman' was authored by Tanya Datta and she was the interviewer in Secret Swami documentary also.

My Response: In the Sai Baba: God-man or con man article, Tanya Datta summarized (in her own words) that Premanand believed that SSB was "one of the key witnesses" to the events that transpired in June of 1993. In the Secret Swami programme, Premanand's actual words were, "The only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths, that was Sai Baba...". The quote, "Critics say police connections ensured that Sai Baba wasn't even interviewed, despite being one of the witnesses to the events of that night", was not made by Premanand. It was made by Tanya Datta. So when one looks at Premanand's actual words, he directly said that SSB was the "only person who was a witness to the murders and mysterious deaths". Premanand does not know that SSB was a "witness". That is his assumption and guess. He has no proof to support this contention.

GM : It now reads: "An article re-hashing the same points over and over. This article talks about Basava Premanand, who is well known for spreading lies and conspiracy theories, against SSB".

Reply : It is not me who authored Tanya Datta's article, so what relevance has it to add his demeaning comments on me. Just another baseless attack to imprint the idea on readers' minds! As to re-hashing, GM is no person to talk for he proves to full satisfaction that he is the greatest re-hasher in this very reply below, which will be seen as we proceed. Rather than me, GM should instead question SSB to why he is constantly rehashing and rehashing the same points on his life in all the books published on him.

My Response: The relevance was quite simple. I made a brief comment about Tanya Datta's "Sai Baba: God-man or con man" article. Premanand read that comment and blew it way out of proportion. He could have simply contacted me and said the quote was mistyped. He didn't. That's why we are discussing this issue. Premanand obviously forgot how this topic originated.

GM : B Premanand also repeats the lie that, SSB was "one of the key witnesses to the events of that night".

Reply : GM is trying to confuse readers yet again, this time making the completely false statement. It is not I who am lying but GM, in a bold-faced manner too! No one has to my knowledge denied that SSB was present when the intruders were inside the mandir, was warned by a servitor whereupon he sounded the alarm, left his apartment (i.e. fled the murder scene) and locked the door from the outside. His own brother stated this, along with many others. Not even GM, who is so thorough in his denials. This alone is enough to make him a key witness, quite apart from the fact that he was nearby throughout the hours of the stand-off within his ashram, over which he exercise complete control. Four young men, devotees of a key witness, one of whom was regularly sleepijg in the mandir on SSB's permission, were shot down in cold blood. Or does GM dispute even this known, documented fact? Where did he or any others prove that he was not one of the key witnesses of the events of that night. GM should do some actual research for once, instead of hair-splitting so as to cloud the truth.

My Response: This is true. SSB knew, at some point, there were intruders, sounded the alarm and fled his room. However, that is not my point of contention. Premanand said, "The only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths, that was Sai Baba..." So I am not contending that SSB was unaware that the intruders broke into the mandir. My point of contention is that there is no evidence that SSB "witnessed" either the murders to his 2 aides, or the shootings to the 4 assailants. Where is the proof that SSB "witnessed" any of these things? The fact of the matter is that there is no proof. Premanand speculated, assumed and guessed what might have happened. He does not know what actually happened.

GM : Premanand does not know this.

Reply : When GM states that Premanand does not know this, he should prove that there were no other witnesses to the murders, or to SSB's presence in his bedroom etc. etc. But there were!

My Response: Once again, Premanand based this response on his faulty interpretation to my words. He needs to re-read my previous reply.

GM : He is speculating as can be seen on my article about Basava Premanand's conspiracy theory about the murders in 1993."

Reply : This article has been already refuted that all his speculations were based on his imagination wherein he never produced any proof, and he has himself made clear in a posting on FactNet that he did not read the book 'Murders in Sai Baba’s Bed Room'.

My Response: Premanand is essentially saying that the core evidence against SSB has not been published on the internet, but rather, you must pay US $40 to get it. The content that has been duplicated, on Anti-Sai Sites from Premanand's book, is (to my understanding) the core evidence against SSB. None of this information provides any proof that SSB "witnessed" the murders or shootings that occurred in June of 1993.

GM : I accidentally typed "the only key witness" instead of "one of the key witnesses".

Reply : So GM's statement discussed in this article is not true then, it is an error! Good to know that!. Now, had there been time for afterthought, I might have changed the word 'only' in my statement talking with Tanya Datta so the situation would have been clearer to viewers. But TV is a medium which one cannot control afterwards, like GM constantly does with his web pages.

My Response: I corrected my typo. Premanand does not have the courage to correct his lies, slander and erroneous comments. Even if Premanand changed the word "only", he still has no proof that SSB "witnessed" the murders and shootings that occurred that night. Period.

GM : However, this does not change my opinion that Premanand lied about SSB being a "witness".

Reply : On what basis did GM form this opinion? Was he one of the witnesses to the 6 murders? Does he have private access to SSB to know this? Where is the proof, which is always lacking from his 'opinions'.?

My Response: How does Premanand know that SSB was a "witness"? On what basis does Premanand form his opinion? Was Premanand "one of the witnesses" to the murders or shootings? No, he wasn't. Did Premanand "have private access to SSB to know this"? No, he didn't. Where is the proof that Premanand is basing his views on? He doesn't have it and just refuted himself with the very same questions he posed to me!

GM : He does not know that. That is his sheer speculation.

Reply : Let anyone judge which of us is speculating without thorough research, proof and documentation?

My Response: I agree!

GM : Click Here to view the correction. I have no idea what Premanand is talking about when he said, "he is an adept in faking even published newspaper articles". Premanand does not cite which "newspaper articles" I supposedly "faked". This accusation is totally unfounded and a bold-faced lie.

Reply : GM and his "bold-faced lies"! Already I have put on he web numerous articles replying to him where others can decide who is doing all the faking, him or I. When he makes convenient mistakes like writing 'the only witness' instead of 'one of the key witnesses' and is caught out, he 'corrects them'.

My Response: That is right, I am accountable for my errors and correct them. Wish the same could be said for Premanand and Anti-Sai Activists.

GM : What is amusing about this accusation is that all of the newspaper articles I cited (on my pages about Priddy and Premanand's conspiracy theories) were actually taken directly from Anti-Sai Sites! If Premanand claims that newspaper articles were "faked", he is actually casting aspersions on Anti-Sai Activists and accusing them of faking newspaper article.

Reply : What devious twists GM tries! GM is making himself look very foolish by this. Nowhere did I state that the newspaper articles were "faked" without making clear that this was by GM? Citing newspaper articles and then adding something which is not in them is not 'amusing'. How does he know who changed the words from "one of the key witnesses" to "the only key witness" in the news paper? I have a copy the article cited and find the words to be exact copy.

My Response: First of all, the Sai Baba: God-man or con man article (Reference) was not a "published newspaper article". It was an internet article published on the BBC.co.uk site. Furthermore, I did not "fake" the article, as I only made one quote from it composed of 4 words! Despite Premanand's "research" into the "Sai Baba: God-man or con man" article, he is completely unaware that it was not a "newspaper article"! Furthermore, Premanand accused me of faking "newspaper articles" (plural, denoting more than one). Where are all the other "newspaper articles" I am faking? If Premanand cannot get even basic information correct about the "Sai Baba: God-man or con man" article (that he claimed to research), how can he expect people to believe his inaccurate replies?

GM : Premanand accuses me with no proof (which is the same thing he does with Sathya Sai Baba).

Reply : Just one small proof is indicated in the above, though GM tries to squirm away from it. He is faking to hide the facts and the whole entire scenario around the murders in Sai Baba's bedroom, he is faking a conspiracy theory about the Hislop letters, he is faking when he tries by subterfuges to defend Sai Baba (who he admits he believes is a sexual abuser) by attacking those who stand forth, he is faking to defame Reinier van der Sandt and Barry Pittard most scandalously, for it is definitely completely untrue and sheer defamation and so on and so on...

My Response: Notice how Premanand is introducing irrelevant subject material? I am not "squirming" away from anything. I am directly answering all questions head on (unlike Premanand's responses to me).

Click Here to view my article about the Hislop Letters. Click Here to view my articles about Reinier Van Der sandt. Click Here to view my articles about Barry Pittard. One will notice that I fully reference my opinions. I do not blindly attack others like Premanand does against me.

GM : The newspaper articles I cited were taken from the following page (located on the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet, hetnet.nl/~ex-baba): http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/excerpts.html. My comment about Premanand saying that SSB was the "only key witness" was actually based on the Secret Swami Documentary.

Reply : How could GM say actually based on the Secret Swami documentary when his comments in the above were specifically based on Godman or Conman? Is he so confused or was he just faking to mislead and complicate further? Readers can decide.

My Response: This is explained in the following response.

GM : Premanand failed to remember his own words, recorded on video. The BBC transcript reads: "BASAVA PREMANAND: Rationalist & Author: The only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths, that was Sai Baba and he was not examined as, for evidence at all and those students also who were there, two or three students they were not examined at all." [Secret Swami, BBC Text Transcript: 10.46.51] Consequently, Premanand did say the "only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths, that was Sai Baba".

Reply : I do not fail to remember anything. The word 'only' was uttered there, but it was a bit like a slip of the tongue easily done in a live interview, and quite insignificant really, which is shown by the fact that, in the very same sentence I spoke of other witnesses.Besides, English is not my mother tongue, so I may not always be very clear under such circumstances. Why did GM not show the whole sentence, which was: "The only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths, that was Sai Baba and he was not examined as, for evidence at all and those students also who were there, two or three students they were not examined at all" (from the BBC transcript). GM is fishing for a tiddler!

My Response: Notice how Premanand is entitled to a "slip of the tongue", but I am not entitled to a typo (which I corrected, by the way)!

Premanand just accused me (loosely too, I might add) of not providing the "whole sentence" he made in the Secret Swami. Once again, Premanand lied. Just look at my comment prior to his "Reply". I clearly said, "BASAVA PREMANAND: Rationalist & Author: The only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths, that was Sai Baba and he was not examined as, for evidence at all and those students also who were there, two or three students they were not examined at all." If Premanand cannot even see the full quote I provided, then this explains why he repeatedly fails to stay on topic and repeatedly fails to answer my points of contention. Obviously, he is not even reading my replies! That a pretty big quote not to see! I suggest Premanand "fish" for his glasses.

GM : Consequently, my comments were true although the quote I provided was mistyped. Unlike Anti-Sai Sites, I promptly corrected the typo. I corrected the mistype.

Reply : His comments lack proof, and happen to be entirely untrue too. It was certainly in GM's interest to alter his 'once convenient mistakes'. But what does GM mean by "Unlike Anti-Sai Sites"? GM has not given "click here" to prove his statement. Which sites, there are many to refer to? Is he saying that corrections are never made on exposé sites? Or they do not correct typos/mistypes promptly (enough for GM's liking)? What a stickler for trivial point-making? Meanwhile, he has many pages needing major corrections on his website, for the are jampacked with delusions, distortions, untruths, slander and more. For example, all the many points I and others have proved against him which he simply ignores or stubbornly denies without a figment of fact. They are too many to list, of course.

My Response: I have cited numerous lies and errors made by Anti-Sai Activists. They are fully documented under their names: Reference. I also named the Twenty Two Anti-Sai Sites, that disperse Anti-Sai material, on my Second Response: Part One page. Besides Alexanda Nagel, not even one other Anti-Sai Activist emailed me any discrepancies about articles made on my site. It is true that there were several Anti-Sai Activists who resorted to other means to counter my articles, but these counter-attacks were less "counter" and more "attacks". Premanand is free to email me about any factual discrepancies, and I will correct them. All he has to do is point them out and provide me with factual information to refute anything I said. "Speculations", "assumptions", "guesses" and "what ifs" do not count as, or substitute for, factual information.

GM : What "conspiracy theory"? I never wrote a "conspiracy theory" about the 1993 police shootings. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to write about it when no one knows what really happened. I simply pointed out the many problems in Premanand and Priddy's conspiracy theories. Consequently, this comment, by Premanand, is totally unfounded. Furthermore, Premanand does not refute any of my disagreements with his speculations about the 1993 police shootings. Click Here to read my article that discusses the many problems with Premanand's wild speculations regarding the incidents that occurred on June 6th 1993.

Reply : MY comments are very well founded. They shows how Gèrald Morèno is himself a walking conspiracy theory, and part of this is constantly to assume and insinuate that SSB is innocent of involvement in the murders and the many alleged sexual abuses etc. Contradictorily, he says it is 'impossible to write about' when 'no one knows what really happened'. He writes plenty about it himself, as if he knew anything. But much of what really happened , if not all is known and much of it is already documented. But GM is trying to wash away the crime again and again! GM is in fact also part of the widespread Sai movement conspiracy aiming to hide SSB's actual role in the murders and stop him having to face any judicial process. This is shown also by GM's attacks against the JuST group and on most those who sign the Sai petition calling for investigation further proves beyond all doubt. GM is being exceedingly dishonest. Now, SSB has not refuted any of my or Priddy's theories. I have already replied very early in July itself to GM's refutation, when Murali Krishna gave me a copy of it. I have also filed my reply with a copy of Gèrald Morèno's refutation with the Law Enforcement Department early in July.

My Response: Premanand is presuming guilt before a Court of Law has made such a determination. Premanand is not a lawyer, a judge or a jury. As a matter of fact, his repeated failures, in Indian Courts of Law, show that his views do not warrant any legal basis. Premanand would like to deceive people with equivocations and bloated statements, whose sole aim is to take the focus away from him and place it on others. Much of what was documented in the F.I.R. has already been shown to be falsified and incorrect. Since the police tampered with the crime scene, effectively destroying the evidence, nothing can be said with any certainty. Premanand claims he knows the truth. He does not.

Regarding the JuST Petition, Click Here to view my article about it. As one can see, SaiPetition.net is thoroughly dishonest! Why is Premanand continually soliciting dishonest people and a dishonest petition? What does this say about his honesty?

Why is Premanand talking about things irrelevant to my points of contention regarding him? Despite Premanand's ceaseless references to "Law Enforcement Departments" no one has contacted me or even submitted any complaint to me (despite contact links being provided on almost all of my pages).

GM : Unlike Anti-Sai Activists, I correct any errors I make when it it brought to my attention.

Reply : GM does not prove that he corrects any errors he makes when it is brought to his attention. Even if he gives these, I am unable to believe that when some one points out his mistakes to him he corrects them. I have pointed out many serious mistakes and defamations, but he sticks to them!

My Response: I corrected 4 errors I made in my Betrayal article. Premanand made no less than 19 errors in reply!

GM : Premanand seems to be repeatedly making the case that he did not say SSB was the "only key witness".

Reply: GM had to write "seems" because he knows he has no real point here! So now he sees that I am not repeatedly making the case that I did not say SSB was the only witness, but he is repeatedly repeating his view. What I said was that I did not state that in 'Godman or Conman' as I was not the author nor was I quoted verbatim., and it is true and you have confirmed it in your confession. GM struggles to deceive and does not correct his mistakes.

My Response: I corrected the paragraph by removing the reference to the quote. Premanand is lying. Click Here to view the correction (scroll down to the last entry).

GM : However, I have indisputably shown that Premanand said exactly that (albeit, not in the God-man/Con-man article).

Reply : GM is repeatedly repeating himself. If he were quoting some other material he ought to have stated that.

My Response: I did quote the "other material". It came from the Secret Swami!

GM : Premanand said that SSB was the "only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths". My comments were based on this background information from the Secret Swami Documentary.

Reply : GM is now repeating his repeated repetitions. His previous article never stated that it was what is taken from the Secret Swami Documentary, on the contrary.

My Response: Premanand asked for clarification, so I gave it to him. Futhermore, the comment from which all this originated was one small paragraph, 3 sentences long! It was not an "article".

GM : My site actually provides voluminous amounts of information, about alleged sexual abuse victims, that have been purposely suppressed from the general public. Click Here to read my Witnesses Section, that discusses the testimonies of alleged sexual abuse victims.

Reply : I find that GM has not provided even one sound piece of information after investigating the victims except his 'voluminous' assumptions, opinions, denials and constant use of words like 'maybe' and 'appear to', all devoid of true or fact-based information or actual investigatory contact with alleged sexual abuse victims.

My Response: I find that Premanand has not provided even one sound piece of information about his investigation into the 1993 Police Shootings.

I contacted Jed Geyerhahn (he did not reply to my email), Edwin Reu Rings, "Gabriel Merrun" and Said Khorramshahgol (indirectly). I also contacted the Rahm Family (and even got a response from them) and Conny Larsson (who responded by saying all he could do is "puke" over people like me). The reason I have not contacted other alleged victims is because they do not have any contact information! Anti-Sai Activists are refusing to supply it to me. Consequently, my articles are based on alleged victim's own words and testimonies. Anti-Sai Activists blame me for not contacting the victims, but, at the same time, refuse to provide me with contact information! A cultish non sequitur tactic.

GM : Regarding Premanand's "deception", Click Here to view screen captures to SaiPetition.net, Robert Priddy's Ex-Office Bearers Page and the BBC text to the Secret Swami Documentary. Basava Premanand personally made a submission to SaiPetition.net (which was subsequently replicated on Robert Priddy's Ex-Office Bearers Page) stating that he was a follower of Sri Sathya Sai Baba from 1968 to 1974 and was the "best worker in the SSB Org., Podanur". However, in the Secret Swami Documentary, Basava Premanand claimed that he was never a follower and had been trying to investigate SSB since 1968 itself.

Reply : I have been very much involved in the production of Secret Swami in India. I searched the entire script of the documentary Secret Swami and could not find the words he has stated in his response : The screen capture shows only the following :- "10.20.34 BP : I have been investigating him since nineteen sixty eight 10.20.38 Tanya Datta : nineteen Sixty eight. 10:20:39 : BP : Sixty eight. Investigating and drawing my conclusions and keeping it as a hobby. 10.20.46 : Tanya Datta : What do you think of him then?" So this another faking by GM, unless he can point out the exact material. I got the screen captures to Sai petitions net after "click here ". Who stated that I did not personally make that submission? GM has not asked me if I did make that submission. For his information it is I who made the submission, as follows: Basava Premanand India signed the petition on September 27, 2004. Period as a follower : 1968 – 1974. Position in SSB Org : Best worker in SSB Org. Podanur. This is also there "I have exposed all the miracles of SSB and also investigated murders, financial exploitation and sexual abuse of students. Govt of India have to investigate him.

My Response: Premanand said he made the submission. Under this submission, he claimed he was a follower (devotee) of SSB from 1968 - 1974. In the Secret Swami documentary, Premanand never made any mention to being a "follower" (devotee) of SSB. Instead, what Premanand did say was that he had been "investigating him since nineteen sixty eight". How can one be a "follower" (devotee) to SSB, yet at the same time be "investigating" him secretly and then go public in 1976? Let us look at what Premanand told Tanya Datta in full (Premanand left out some lines):

10.20.30
Tanya Datta
How many years have you been chasing Sai Baba then?

10.20.34
Basava Premenand
I have been investigating him since nineteen sixty-eight.

10.20.38
Tanya Datta
Nineteen sixty-eight.

10.20.39
Basava Premenand
Sixty-eight. Investigating and drawing my conclusions and keeping it as a hobby.

10.20.46
Tanya Datta
What do you think of him then?

10.20.47
Basava Premenand
The thing is, you can explain miracles, you can expose people who act like miracle men and it was in nineteen seventy-six I started going to the public.

Consequently, Premanand was never a "follower" (devotee) of Sathya Sai Baba. He pretended he was a devotee to get close to SSB with the sole intention to expose him. There is a huge difference between being a "follower" and being a wolf in sheeps clothing.

GM : To further the argument Click Here to read an article that was published in the The Independent, on December 24th 2000, where it was claimed that Premanand had "spent nearly 50 years touring Indian villages, drawing crowds of people by demonstrating how "miracles" are performed".

Reply : This is not my statement. This is what Beatrice Newbery wrote. She has mixed two materials together. Did GM show courtesy to enquire with me or Beatrice and the Independent?

My Response: I did not attribute that quote to Premanand. I attributed it to The Independent. Why do all these journalists keep getting their information wrong about Premanand (despite personally interviewing him)? Is Premanand saying this article is false? Why doesn't Premanand tell us when he first became a skeptic? Why the secrecy? Notice how Premanand apparently denies the accuracy to this article but withholds all information that would refute it?

GM : When this article was written, Premanand was 71 (he was born in 1930). Consequently, Premanand had been exposing gurus since the age of 21 or 22. This means that in 1968 (at the age of 38, or 16 years after he was a rationalist) Premanand was not a follower of SSB. Why did Premanand lie?

Reply : I have not stated that I was not a follower of SSB. I took the membership of SSB's Samithi in Podanur in 1968 to investigate his miracles I have documents to prove this. Read the 'click here' materials together and find out why I became a follower of SSB. This is documented in my book 'Divine Octopus and the Health' souvenir published by Geedee Medical Aids long back. All in all, it is clear that GM is very confused about it all and writes anything and twists anything just because he is in such deep trouble with all his undocumented and imagined facts, except perhaps on some trivial, secondary points.

My Response: It doesn't matter when Premanand took "membership" in SSB's Samithi in Podanur. Premanand was never a "follower" (devotee) of Sathya Sai Baba. The only reason he joined the Samithi was to get close to SSB, "investigate" his miracles and then publicly expose him. All of these claims are fully verifiable using Premanand's own words in this response and on the Secret Swami.

As one can see, my points are fully warranted and supported. Since Premanand obviously has trouble understanding English and reading, he takes issue with me for saying things I never said! Despite Premanand's indiscriminate replies, he has the audacity to call me "confused". How can anyone trust anything he has to say?