UNFOUNDED, MISLEADING CLAIMS AGAINST MY WRITINGS - part two e-mail, click here by Basava Premanand

Reply to Gèrald Morèno's claims from
http://www.saisathyasai.com/

Whether intentional or not, Basava Premanand gave a non-operable link to my site. I have corrected the link above with my main domain URL.

THE SECOND CRITICISM is made under "ExBaba.com: Deception" also in the page 'Comments by Gèrald Morèno - On Basava Premanand, honored by the Indian Government' - where he refers to the ExBaba page 'Hoax - busters'

Gèrald Morèno's comments appear in bold black face and mine in regular case navy blue type.

News at Exbaba.com
Hoax - busters
http://home.hetent.nl/~ex_baba/engels/articles/hoaxbusters.html

GM : It is important that magician tricks be divulged to the general public so that they won't be duped by frauds. In this article, Premanand giving false estimations regarding SSB's assets. He has no proof to back up these estimates. Another unsubstantiated claim from a "rationalist" and believer in science (supposedly)

Reply : Magicians are artists who give shows to entertain the audience do not claim that their tricks are miracles, nor do they dupe the general public. It is the frauds who claim to be gods or agents of god who dupe the general public by showing tricks as miracles. To prove that my figure of $ 1.7 billion is false, Morèno should know the correct figure from SSB's balance sheet for 2004. Before he can tell that the figure is not true he has the responsibility to prove that it is false. Without knowing the correct figure how could he conclude that my figures are false?

My Response: This is actually reverse logic. I have not seen any documentation, from any source, that gives a figure to Sathya Sai Baba's assets. The fact of the matter is that these numbers are speculative. Since Basava Premanand made the claim about SSB's assets, he should substantiate his claim with documentation. Premanand has not made any documentation public to support his claim. Where is the documentation for "SSB's balance sheet for 2004"? According to Rediff.com, the Sathya Sai Trust received Rs 881.8 million (US $22 million) in 2003 in charitable donations (Ref. 1) That is US $1.48 billion short of Premanand's number. These figures also do not take into account expenditures.

Robert Priddy has informed on his website: "The UK magazine The Economist had a front page notice about the 'Sai Baba Empire' back in early 1990, where they estimated his assets at over US$2 billion. They also reckoned him to be the No. 1 foreign exchange earner in India at that time! That estimate must have been based on known or visible assets…" Conservative calculations put the current total figure much higher than two billion. For example, Isaac Tigrett contributed US $39 million to the Puttaparthi Hospital. The Canadian metal dealer, James Sinclair, alone contributed US $600 million in 1990 as announced by Indulal Shah at the 70th birthday celebrations. Sai Baba stated in a discourse that a donation of 100 crores was received anonymously from New York (see p. 82. Sathya Sai Speaks, Vol. XXVII).

My Response: The article mentioned, from The Economist, is nowhere to be found. Robert Priddy managed to remember the details to a 1990 article 10 years later, after becoming an Anti-Sai Activist. Once again, these numbers are speculative and unsubstaniated. There are no documents that validate these numbers. If these documents exist, I can only wonder why Priddy and Premanand have not made them public? Furthermore, these calculation do not include expenditures. If one adds up these amounts (including the amount from 1990): US $600 million + US $39 million + Rs. 100 crores (US $25 million) = US $664 million. This number is US $1.03 billion short of US $1.7 billion (Premanand's estimate) and US $1.33 billion short of US $2 billion (Priddy's estimate). Mentioning articles written 15 years ago and making speculative calculations about them is unreliable.

Morèno has taken one line of mine, without regard for all the rest. To the unwary, Morèno may appear to be a genuine investigator. Yet he seizes on a single points - too often not accuratelyl! - and weaves a whole distortion from it, drawing unsupported conclusions, and - worst of all - slandering his opponent.

My Response: As one can see, my claims are not without merit. Consequently, they are not slanderous, but entirely valid.