Did Carlos Make It All Up?

I wrote:

Again, if one has read all the works (3 times for me. I’m a slow learner), the first book was purportedly compiled shortly into his apprenticeship when CC was just beginning the relationship and thought dJ was a Yaqui brujo just teaching him Yaqui Shamanism. dJ supposedly used a myriad of teaching aids to capture CC’s attention. But in the later works, dJ delves into the Toltec basis of the paradigm and how it evolved and goes so far as to point out that no two lineages were the same. That there were many “Man of Knowledge” paths.

CalMeacham wrote:

If Castaneda couldn’t find out that Don Juan Matus’ philosophy and methods didn’t resemble Yaqui ways in the slightest (and it was easily obtainable information – there’s a lot of work on the Yaqui, and this is supposed to be his field, fer cryin’ out loud! There are even popular books on the Yaqui.), or, finding out, didn’t even make a token comment on it, then he’d get no Ph.D. in anthropology from me,

I write:
You seem to be really stuck on this issue. First you go from saying there were just contradictions to “…dJ’s philosophy and methods didn’t resemble Yaqui ways in the slightest.) That’s sure a broad stroke. I don’t think that is accurate at all. Was there some reason CC was supposed to be doubting this old Yaqui Indian who walked the walk and talked the talk? Here he had a recommended Yaqui Shaman and CC really wanted and needed a subject to pursue. His dream was a coveted PhD from UCLA. (Now, don’t go saying that he coveted it so bad that he was willing to commit fraud. You don’t know, you weren’t there, so don’t go there).

Another way to look at it. How many sects of Christianity are there? Would you say that Jehovah Witnesses have different rituals than, say, Methodist’s, even though they are both Christians? The former are apt to start speaking in tongues during the service which is certainly unlike the Church of Christ services I was brought up in. In the deep south some churches combine poisonous snake charming via intense dancing, singing, handling and kissing these poisonous creatures all in the name of worshipping god and Jesus. Different rituals, same religion—Christianity. So I’m sure Yaqui shamanism comes in a variety of flavors as well.

I think yours and other’s problem lies in the fact that you cannot accept what you don’t understand. If you can’t explain it, it must be bullshit. Unless, of course, you were brought up around it and were taught not to question it (ie. religion). I really don’t know if don Juanism is true or not. I think it stands an equal chance of being as real as the next religion.


I don’t keep bringing it up. I’ve posted twice You keep bringing it up.

My point still stands. If Castaneda is going for a degree in anthro and doesn’t know or care enough to compare his field research with the published literature he doesn’t even rate a bachelor’s degree, let alone a master’s or a doctorate.
And the matter comes up several times (in the written critiques by others) because it is one of the testable and provable items in the case of Castaneda. Too often his critics are dismissed because they are not felt to grasp the essence or truth of his vision. This element is free of that sort of subjectivity.

CalMeacham:

<<I don’t keep bringing it up. I’ve posted twice You keep bringing it up.>>

My apologies, sir.

<<My point still stands. If Castaneda is going for a degree in anthro and doesn’t know or care enough to compare his field research with the published literature he doesn’t even rate a bachelor’s degree, let alone a master’s or a doctorate.>>

But you keep dismissing totally out of hand the fact that 3 PhD UCLA Anthropology professors didn’t think so. Are you saying these professors were total idiots, yet were on the scene, but you and others know better? I still take issue with such a broad statement that there isn’t the slightest resemblance to anything Yaqui.

Short of obtaining a birth certificate, dJ was a bonafide Yaqui Indian. Since CC didn’t mention that he did NOT have the anthropological features of a Yaqui Indian, then there was no reason to doubt his heritage. He was pointed out and referred to him by a known informant as a Yaqui shaman. And in one of the books it was mentioned that it was common knowledge that local townspeople where he had a residence knew him as such. You wouldn’t go down to the jungles in Brazil and hang out with one of those isolated tribes, come home, and then be expected to prove that those people were who they claimed to be, would you? (ie. an isolated Brazilian rain forest tribe)Ludicrous, I agree.

It was not CC’s purpose or job to compare dJ’s shamanistic rituals with other researcher’s experiences. That would be another book if he so desired. As detective Friday would say, “Just the facts, ma’am.” He says he wrote what he saw and heard. His job was simply to report, as accurately as possible, his experience and then organize it coherently for the readers. Not to validate the authenticity of his source since it was a supposed “given”.

<<And the matter comes up several times (in the written critiques by others) because it is one of the testable and provable items in the case of Castaneda. Too often his critics are dismissed because they are not felt to grasp the essence or truth of his vision. This element is free of that sort of subjectivity.>>

That’s what they say but I don’t personally feel it’s testable and provable because 1) they weren’t there and, 2) as I’ve already pointed out dJ was more than a supposed Yaqui Shaman and used tools from other sources to accomplish his mission regarding CC.

If you read Taisha Abelar’s book, in all her encounters with dJ he was always dressed in casual clothing: slacks and shirt and never presented himself as a “Yaqui Shaman”. He spoke perfect English and had business interests. It is apparent that dJ wore several hats. And when viewed from that perspective, trying to disprove the whole thesis by picking apart his first book isn’t convincing to me. It’s only convincing if you’re predisposed to not wanting to believe it.

Additionally, as I understand it, the Yaqui nation is a very closed society and extremely suspicious of outsiders. I doubt seriously that all the published anthropological data out there on Yaqui shamanism is entirely accurate. I also would like to remind you of the argument I made below:

“Another way to look at it. How many sects of Christianity are there? Would you say that Jehovah Witnesses have different rituals than, say, Methodist’s, even though they are both Christians? The former are apt to start speaking in tongues during the service which is certainly unlike the Church of Christ services I was brought up in. In the deep south some churches combine poisonous snake charming via intense dancing, singing, handling and kissing these poisonous creatures all in the name of worshipping god and Jesus. Different rituals, same religion—Christianity. So I’m sure Yaqui shamanism comes in a variety of flavors as well.”

So, as with the Bible or whatever, it all comes down to having faith in one’s belief. People are disgruntled at CC because they can’t “see” luminous eggs, energy, and other worlds. Heck, neither can I. They go crashing around at night in the woods (usually stoned or drunk) with their “gait of power” trying to find their ally like silly fools. Ingest copious amount of psychedelics in their apartments. Since they can’t, it must all be bullshit. Hey, it may be. Yet, Christians have never seen Jesus perform any of his miracles but does that matter to them?

Now, if I were you, I’d be looking more at the manner of CC’s death: cancer. CC purportedly bragged how he’d never get cancer (because Nagual’s don’t get cancer I presume) and only people with weak tonals got it. Rumor has it that he didn’t die exactly a nagual’s death by any stretch and certainly not by “burning with the fire from within.” All I have is hearsay on the subject and we may never know the truth.

Can you give a cite for his boast about cancer? Where do you get your info about his death? From whence the “hearsay?” Not trying to deny anything, just curious about your sources.

No, just that, like most academics, they were only on the lookout for incomplete work and/or bad logic, and not fraud. Academics are among the easiest people in the world to scam, because the one thing they’re not prepared for is deliberate lies.

SamClem:

No, I can’t give you the direct link to that information but it’s somewhere in either the Sustained Action or Sustained Reaction site. For those of you who don’t know, these sites were formed by a Mr. Corey Donovan. Attorney and ex-Casteneda follower who attended weekly meetings at Cleargreen with CC and the witches and was a real disciple. Then after CC’s death he became disillusioned. However, he was not part of the CC’s inner circle (Carol Tiggs,Taisha Abelar, etc). Of note, none of the inner circle is talking.

But I’d recommend using the Search function on the SA site. It’s full of enough interesting information to keep you occupied for months if you are interested.

You might also try starting a new thread on the SR-Casteneda’s Legacy forum and ask the question directly, even to Corey or whoever the moderator currently is. Somebody will probably direct you where to look.

Carlos’s death certificate:
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Images_Documents/Castaneda_death_cert.htm
Photo of Carlos, 1962 (he was rather camera shy)
http://www.sustainedaction.org/Images_Photos/Carlos%20and%20Joanie%20Wedding%20Big.htm

Sustained Action site
http://www.sustainedaction.org/
Sustained Reaction forum site. Click “Casteneda’s Legacy” for current forum discussions.
http://server6.ezboard.com/bsustainedreaction98489

Dear JWK

I wrote:
<But you keep dismissing totally out of hand the fact that 3 PhD UCLA Anthropology professors didn’t think so. Are you saying these professors were total idiots,>

You wrote:
<<No, just that, like most academics, they were only on the lookout for incomplete work and/or bad logic, and not fraud. Academics are among the easiest people in the world to scam, because the one thing they’re not prepared for is deliberate lies.>>

I hear what you’re saying but I think CC made a pretty convincing case when he presented the lead professor on the committee with his initial detailed knowledge of Datura preparation and useage which was apparantly a closely guarded secret by the Shamans. And like myself, they too probably came to the conclusion that no one could make up that up. That’s just my opinion.

Incidentally, I posted earlier that his PhD was granted for “A Separate Reality”. It was actually “Journey to Ixtlan”.

Artemius said:

You could read my sentence with miracles replaced by supposed miracles or claimed miracles. In other words, just because someone calls it a “miracle” does not make it so.

Ridiculous straw men do not help your case. I never said anything about Jesus or “miracles” in the bible. While I doubt that they occurred the way they are described, the ability to study them and find out what really happened is lost to us in time. That is, in fact, often the case with descriptions of incidents witnessed by others. How do you investigate an experience you weren’t there for? The only witness has come to a conclusion, and so their descriptions of the observations are tainted by their conclusions and preconceptions? Their memories are colored by their repeated reinforcing of those conclusions and preconceptions every time they tell the story.

I suppose this sounds contradictory to my previous point, that claims of miracles could be investigated. It depends on the nature of the “miracle” as to whether investigation can reasonably uncover enough information or not.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and no desire to find out. Did any of this have a varifiable effect on the material world (i.e. levitating an object, making an object appear out of thin air, etc), or was this all within the subjective mind?

Your comment about Hubbard gives me a chuckle. My point: you claimed people could not be that creative. Yet clearly some people are that creative. Perhaps CC was that creative, perhaps not, but it is not impossible, and you argued that it was.

You said in your first post (or rather second post, since the first had a glitch)

I infer from that applying “making it up” to the authors of the Bible. You continue to list several problems with the Bible, including:

Bolding mine for emphasis. Again, that implies to me that at least parts of the Bible are made up.

What sources of information did the professors have access to about Datura preparation and use, to make that judgement? And how did CC not have access to those sources, if he was studying in the field?

Irrelevant. Billy Graham could be a blithering idiot. You yourself disparage Hubbard’s writings and Scientology. Yet thousands (millions?) of people accept them and think they are great. Doesn’t make them correct. Doesn’t make Hubbard’s writings true.

To CalMeacham:

I agree, says the declared atheist. :wink:

If he was using the material as a basis for a degree in anthropology, then yes it was. If his dissertation is supposed to be about the way of life of Yaqui indians, and about the religious rituals of Yaqui shaman, then it most definitely is his duty to verify the information he is giving is, in fact, Yaqui. If his dissertation is claiming that the information is not Yaqui, but some Toltec derivative, then it is important that that point be made, and he should attempt to verify against any other sorces for Toltec beliefs, culture, and ritual.

In fact, there’s a case where anthropologists were fooled by a phony tribe on an island in the Philippines. Turns out it was a hoax. There is also a debate in anthropology circles that Margaret Mead as mislead and fooled, and her seminal works were wrong. (The proponent of that claim is, I gather, not in mainstream anthropology circles on that point.)

CalMeacham, you mention other source material on Yaqui Indians. Does this material predate or postdate Castaneda?

On the contrary, they’re good examples of just how easy it is for clever fraudsters to construct elaborate hoaxes. You might like to dig around this site.

http://smithpp0.tripod.com/psp/idx.html

By the way, Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t Christians.

Irishman:

I wrote:

<Let’s see now, Jesus was seen walking on water. O.K. He put something in the water to increase the surface tension enough to support his weight so long as he kept moving. Yea, right! NOT!>

Irishman writes:

<<Ridiculous straw men do not help your case. I never said anything about Jesus or “miracles” in the bible. While I doubt that they occurred the way they are described, the ability to study them and find out what really happened is lost to us in time. That is, in fact, often the case with descriptions of incidents witnessed by others. How do you investigate an experience you weren’t there for? The only witness has come to a conclusion, and so their descriptions of the observations are tainted by their conclusions and preconceptions? Their memories are colored by their repeated reinforcing of those conclusions and preconceptions every time they tell the story.>>

I write:

I think you missed the point. If something is truly “miraculous”, by definition it defies all known laws of the universe and therefore science cannot explain it; there is no model, no mathematical equation or solution, no theorem, and no physics. Ditto Castenada’s argument that science cannot explain sorcery for the same reason (at least dJ’s brand). Simply because they are two completely different paradigms. You may not like that but you can’t change it.

But it is becoming increasingly clear that you are not really interested in the CC/dJ controversy; rather, arguing for arguing sake which I am not really interested in.

I had written:

<Don Juan could purportedly shift something called an assemblage point in his luminous cocoon and assemble different worlds. Apply your scientific techniques to analyzing that, please, and give us all an explanation how to go about doing it.>

You replied:

<<I have no idea what you are talking about, and no desire to find out. Did any of this have a varifiable effect on the material world (i.e. levitating an object, making an object appear out of thin air, etc), or was this all within the subjective mind?>>

I reply:

Right here is the problem because it is now apparent you haven’t read CC’s books. How can I debate/discuss the issues with you when you haven’t even read them and all your knowledge on the subject is second hand? Since you have no desire to find out, I have no further desire to take you seriously regarding this discussion.

I had previousl written:

<You’re over analyzing here. Let me simplify. It is my opinion that he wasn’t talented enough to make it all up, especially certain portions. And, yes, while it is my opinion CC wasn’t imaginative enough, it’s also just your opinion to the contrary. Should we have an opinion duel at 12 paces? And to compare his works to L. Ron Hubbard’s preposterous trash is no comparison at all. Never got into Tolkien and Herbert so I’ve no comment there.>

You replied:

<<Your comment about Hubbard gives me a chuckle. My point: you claimed people could not be that creative. Yet clearly some people are that creative. Perhaps CC was that creative, perhaps not, but it is not impossible, and you argued that it was>>

I write:

How would you know if they are that creative if you haven’t read the books to make a comparison? Impossible? I didn’t say that. I simply said IMO he wasn’t that creative. Why do you keep misquoting me?

I had written:

<I never said the Bible was made up and perhaps you’d like to supply the quote where I did.>

You replied:

<<You said in your first post (or rather second post, since the first had a glitch)>>

I reply:

No I didn’t. Your inaccuracy is becoming an issue. I think parts of the Bible may be fictitious but it is simply too historically accurate in many areas to be made up en toto.

I had written:

<It may be true what Cecil says about Carlos making it all up. The topic certainly stirs up a lot of controversy. Why isn’t there similar bashing of the authors of the Bible?>

You replied:

<<I infer from that applying “making it up” to the authors of the Bible. You continue to list several problems with the Bible, including:>>

And referenced my words:

<And evidence for the authenticity and accuracy is dubious at best.>

You replied to that with:

<<Bolding mine for emphasis. Again, that implies to me that at least parts of the Bible are made up>>.

I reply:

There’s a big difference between saying “the Bible is made up” vs. “parts” of the Bible are made up or fictitious. Again, lack of attention to detail.

I had written:

<It didn’t seem to bother the 3 PhD professors monitoring his
work. I distinctly remember reading an account of them reading a rough draft of “The Teachings”. From their own experiences, they decided to allow CC to publish it because they knew he had to have had a Yaqui informant to be so intimately familiar with the rituals in Datura use and preparation.>

You replied:

<<What sources of information did the professors have access to about Datura preparation and use, to make that judgement? And how did CC not have access to those sources, if he was studying in the field?>>

I write:

Why don’t you ask them? Irishman, this is what I gave the SA and SR site links for so you and others could investigate and answer these and other questions for yourself. What I gleaned about the subject came from several sources. But since you can’t even bring yourself to read the books and are prone to sloppiness in general regarding logic, inaccuracy, and misquoting, we shouldn’t hold my breath, should we? You really shouldn’t expect others to do your work for you. You can either agree or disagree but don’t try to make an argument from a position of not knowing anything about the subject and then asking others to spoon feed you. If you were academically trained you would know this.

I had written
:
<The Bible has inconsistencies too. Think this makes a difference to Billy Graham?>

You replied:

<<Irrelevant. Billy Graham could be a blithering idiot. You yourself disparage Hubbard’s writings and Scientology. Yet thousands (millions?) of people accept them and think they are great. Doesn’t make them correct. Doesn’t make Hubbard’s writings true.>>
I reply:

Either you are unwilling or or unable to get the point. Billy Graham is considered to be a respected, intelligent, and well-liked individual, rubbing shoulders with President’s and Statesmen and happens to be a religious Christian man. You could be a blithering idiot as well but let’s give the benefit of the doubt. The point being the inconsistencies in the Bible don’t seem to affect his religious convictions. So why should we expect (No. In fact some demand it!) possible inconsistencies in CC’s writings to affect his believers?

Yes, thousands accept L Ron Hubbards “works” (??) What is your point here? I still say it’s trash but I’ll let you make my point for me. That is, while it doesn’t make them correct or true; conversely, it doesn’t make them not correct or true. (I feel like Pinocchio as I say these words in defending that quack Hubbard). Which is exactly what I’m saying about don Juanism. People can analyze and nit pick all they want but they can never prove one way or another if it’s false or true. It’s a personal issue.

I wrote:

<<It was not CC’s purpose or job to COMPARE dJ’s shamanistic rituals with other researcher’s experiences.>>

You replied:

<<If he was using the material as a basis for a degree in anthropology, then yes it was.>>

Irishman, I know this is difficult for you to accept but NO IT WASN’T. How do I know that? BECAUSE I CAN PROVE HE GOT A PHD FROM THE WAY HE DID IT whether you approve or not.

You continue with:

<< If his dissertation is supposed to be about the way of life of Yaqui indians,…>>

Here you go again. Again, just for you: IT WAS NOT ABOUT THE LIFE OF YAQUI INDIANS. Oh, that’s right, YOU haven’t READ the books.

And continued:

<<… and about the religious rituals of Yaqui shaman, then it most definitely is his duty to verify the information he is giving is, in fact, Yaqui….>>

Geez Louise!! It was not about Yaqui Shaman, it was about ONE Yaqui Shaman. And so what? What does that have to do with the discussion of the validity of don Juanism? He got the frickin’ PhD whether you or anyone else approved of his methodology or not or even if you don’t think he deserved it.

“Another way to look at it. How many sects of Christianity are there? Would you say that Jehovah Witnesses have different rituals than, say, Methodist’s, even though they are both Christians? The former are apt to start speaking in tongues during the service which is certainly unlike the Church of Christ services I was brought up in. In the deep south some churches combine poisonous snake charming via intense dancing, singing, handling and kissing these poisonous creatures all in the name of worshipping god and Jesus. Different rituals, same religion—Christianity. So I’m sure Yaqui shamanism comes in a variety of flavors as well.”

“Short of obtaining a birth certificate, dJ was a bonafide Yaqui Indian. Since CC didn’t mention that he did NOT have the anthropological features of a Yaqui Indian, then there was no reason to doubt his heritage. He was pointed out and referred to him by a known informant as a Yaqui shaman. And in one of the books it was mentioned that it was common knowledge that local townspeople where he had a residence knew him as such. You wouldn’t go down to the jungles in Brazil and hang out with one of those isolated tribes, come home, and then be expected to prove that those people were who they claimed to be, would you? (ie. an isolated Brazilian rain forest tribe)Ludicrous, I agree”.

You continued to write:

<<If his dissertation is claiming that the information is not Yaqui, but some Toltec derivative, then it is important that that point be made, and he should attempt to verify against any other sorces for Toltec beliefs, culture, and ritual.>>

And I reply:

Oh, O.K. Now I understand. Your point is that since he didn’t follow what you feel is the correct anthropological research methodology, despite the FACT that he got a PhD, then this proves don Juanism must be made up. By golly, slit my wrists with Occam’s Razor!

Regarding your statement, he didn’t claim that point in his dissertation. If you read the books you wouldn’t come across so…………hmmmmm…… ill-informed.

You wrote:

<<In fact, there’s a case where anthropologists were fooled by a phony tribe on an island in the Philippines. Turns out it was a hoax. There is also a debate in anthropology circles that Margaret Mead as mislead and fooled, and her seminal works were wrong. (The proponent of that claim is, I gather, not in mainstream anthropology circles on that point.)>>

So, you are inferring that the people in the phony tribe didn’t exist? Otherwise, I don’t see the relevance. But thanks for making another point for me. That is: CC was fooled by dJ in the beginning. That is, don Juan was purportedly much more than a supposed Yaqui Shaman. That was just window dressing.

Goodbye Irishman

APB:
Originally posted by Artemius
“Holy Blood, Holy Grail and is successor, The Messianic Legacy are excellent and well researched.”

APB replied:
<<On the contrary, they’re good examples of just how easy it is for clever fraudsters to construct elaborate hoaxes. You might like to dig around this site.>>

Thanks for the link. That is interesting. However, from my perspective, my point still stands because I didn’t read them particularly for the Jesus bloodline controversy. In fact, when I first picked up HB/HG, I skimmed over that part (rather boring)and went straight to the picking apart of Jesus and the New Testament. Nothing fraudulant about that work. Ditto Messianic Legacy.

You should read “The Hiram Key”. Very interesting. I love all the different theories of what the Knight’s Templars found way back when under the old Temple of Jerusulam referred to as the Holy Grail.

John W. Kennedy posted:

<<By the way, Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t Christians.>>

What a mind stimulating rebuttal! My original point still stands.

While you may consider it merely “boring”, I suspect that APB’s point was that it’s precisely the “Jesus bloodline controversy” that’s his or her’s example of “just how easy it is for clever fraudsters to construct elaborate hoaxes”. If you can’t even be bothered to read books that you’re recommending, that’s hardly a recommendation

Bonzer wrote:

<<While you may consider it merely “boring”, I suspect that APB’s point was that it’s precisely the “Jesus bloodline controversy” that’s his or her’s example of “just how easy it is for clever fraudsters to construct elaborate hoaxes”. If you can’t even be bothered to read books that you’re recommending, that’s hardly a recommendation>>

Thank you for making my point for me. That is, clever fraudsters could have indeed constructed elaborate hoaxes regarding the construction of the Bible. You have your opinion and mine still stands that I personally find it difficult to accept that CC made up a lot of what he wrote.

Please try to be more accurate in your statements. I wrote that I read them but skimmed over that portion. Yet you said I didn’t even bother to read it. Can you read? Perhaps you and the Irishman should join forces. You both seem to share similar qualities. What was I supposed to do, study it? Do you study every book you read? I made the recommendation and it still stands. I’m supposed to care that you don’t want to read it?

Do you have any salient inputs regarding the CC/dJ controversy? Or, are you just arguing for arguments sake since you haven’t read his works, all ten of them?

Feel free to assume what I may or may not believe about the Bible. Meanwhile, it hardly seems to me that most of the posters on this thread, or indeed this board, take it for granted that the Bible is beyond query - even most of the devout Christians round here accept that it’s at least open to debate amongst intelligent people. Such openness to other peoples’ ideas, though perhaps with an expectation of evidence or reason, seems an essential part of the SMDB.

Yes, I was unfair in my summary. And I apologise. Would “If you can’t even be bothered to thoroughly read books that you’re recommending, that’s hardly a recommendation” be acceptable ?

I try my best.

Actually, I have read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. And The Messianic Legacy. I’ve also been to Rennes Le-Chateau. That’s not the issue.

Other than the observation that you’re far too trusting of Ph.D. commitees, to be honest, no. But I wasn’t directly commenting on this. If you want to bring up periphial issues, expect to have to defend them.

Bonzer:

Originally posted by Artemius

<Thank you for making my point for me. That is, clever fraudsters could have indeed constructed elaborate hoaxes regarding the construction of the Bible.>
Bonzer replied:

<<Feel free to assume what I may or may not believe about the Bible. Meanwhile, it hardly seems to me that most of the posters on this thread, or indeed this board, take it for granted that the Bible is beyond query - even most of the devout Christians round here accept that it’s at least open to debate amongst intelligent people. Such openness to other peoples’ ideas, though perhaps with an expectation of evidence or reason, seems an essential part of the SMDB.>>
I don’t assume anything about your biblical beliefs. I merely pointed out that you made my point whether you intended to or not.

I had written:

<I wrote that I read them but skimmed over that portion. Yet you said I didn’t even bother to read it.>

You replied:

<<Yes, I was unfair in my summary. And I apologise. Would “If you can’t even be bothered to thoroughly read books that you’re recommending, that’s hardly a recommendation” be acceptable ?>>

Ah, come on. You expect thorough, independent research just to make a casual reading suggestion? You are grasping.

I had written:

<What was I supposed to do, study it? Do you study every book you read?>

You replied:

<<I try my best.>>

Would that include fiction as well?

I had written:

<I’m supposed to care that you don’t want to read it?>

You replied:

<<Actually, I have read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. And The Messianic Legacy. I’ve also been to Rennes Le-Chateau. That’s not the issue.>>

Ah. Now you’ve piqued my interest. That’s right, it isn’t the issue and I’m not quite sure why you are making it one on this particular thread.

I had written:

<Do you have any salient inputs regarding the CC/dJ controversy?>

You replied:

<<Other than the observation that you’re far too trusting of Ph.D. commitees, to be honest, no. But I wasn’t directly commenting on this. If you want to bring up periphial issues, expect to have to defend them.>>

Yet another false assumption. If you would study my posts as much as you claim you study every book you read you wouldn’t be making such incorrect statements. You and Irishman have a bad habit of doing this. Besides, whether I trust PhD committees has nothing to do with the points I am making and you appear to be only interested in trying to find faults with my arguments regarding the CC/dJ controversy by deflecting attention to trivial sidebars. It is no problem defending those peripheral issues you refer to because you and others keep tripping over clumsy attempts to attack my statements because you can’t intelligently comment on the main subject.

If anybody made the point effectively, it was APB. The irony is that while The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is about the worst example to pick of someone trying to argue that the gospels were a hoax, the book itself is a plausible example of people falling for an elaborate hoax. The fact that such hoaxes can be staged may make it more likely that the gospels could be hoaxed, but it sure as hell doesn’t make The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail more convincing. It also undercuts the argument that the writings of Carlos Castaneda are too elaborate to have been made up. Whether they were or not is another matter.
Your double-edged sword is both rustier and sharper than it looks.

It’s harsh to critisise a suggestion made sincerely as part of what I believe was a first post, but in this forum (and Staff Reports, General Questions and Great Debates) nobody really makes casual reading suggestions. Unless you’re commenting on something as an example of what not to rely on, when you mention a book, an article, a paper or any other source you’re implicitly vouching for its reliability. You can qualify this recommendation in any way you choose, even “I actually skipped most of it because I found it boring”. Indeed, just last week, in Great Debates I pointed people to a book that I haven’t even read, but which I know is highly regarded amongst specialists on the subject that was under discussion. So I made sure that I’d spelt this out while making the recommendation.
If you point people to a book or books that are widely regarded as nonsense or wrong, you will be called on it by other posters. (Not least, I admit, because we enjoy doing so, but that’s Dopers for you.) Because of this, yeah, it’s usually a good idea to have a handle on the reputation of anything you want to recommend before you do so.

Points like this ?

And, no, nobody is suggesting that they were idiots, just that they hadn’t had a chance to replicate the fieldwork, so there was inevitably stuff they had to take on trust.

Bonzer:

Originally posted by Artemius

<I merely pointed out that you made my point whether you intended to or not.>

Bonzer wrote:

<<If anybody made the point effectively, it was APB. The irony is that while The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is about the worst example to pick of someone trying to argue that the gospels were a hoax, the book itself is a plausible example of people falling for an elaborate hoax. The fact that such hoaxes can be staged may make it more likely that the gospels could be hoaxed, but it sure as hell doesn’t make The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail more convincing.>>
I
t is the worst example IN YOUR OPINION. And your inability to read and understand and coming to false conclusions/assumptions is becoming quite comical. Did I not make it clear that the part of HB/HG I was referring to was the section not related to the bloodline portion (“The Priest-King Who Never Ruled” & onward)?

….and wrote:

<<It also undercuts the argument that the writings of Carlos Castaneda are too elaborate to have been made up. Whether they were or not is another matter. Your double-edged sword is both rustier and sharper than it looks.>>

How would you know since you are too lazy to read them. Whether they were or not IS the matter and is the subject of this thread, ninny. You’re coming across like the emperor with no clothes on.

I previously wrote:

<Ah, come on. You expect thorough, independent research just to make a casual reading suggestion? You are grasping.>

You replied:

<<It’s harsh to critisise a suggestion made sincerely as part of what I believe was a first post, but in this forum (and Staff Reports, General Questions and Great Debates) nobody really makes casual reading suggestions.>>

Listen Bonzer. If I want to participate in Staff Reports, General Questions and Great Debates, I’ll go there. We’re in the “Comments on Cecil’s Columns” and this is a thread on “Did Carlos Make It All Up.” that I started. You don’t make the rules nor do you speak for everyone which includes me. If you don’t like it here, leave.

…and continued to reply:

<<Unless you’re commenting on something as an example of what not to rely on, when you mention a book, an article, a paper or any other source you’re implicitly vouching for its reliability.>>

Says who, you? You don’t speak for me. But thanks for letting us know the ground rules you’ve set for yourself.

….and continued to reply:

<<You can qualify this recommendation in any way you choose, even “I actually skipped most of it because I found it boring”. Indeed, just last week, in Great Debates I pointed people to a book that I haven’t even read, but which I know is highly regarded amongst specialists on the subject that was under discussion. So I made sure that I’d spelt this out while making the recommendation.>>

Well aren’t you special! You seem to be in the habit of commenting on books you haven’t read.

…….and continued to reply:

<<If you point people to a book or books that are widely regarded as nonsense or wrong, you will be called on it by other posters. (Not least, I admit, because we enjoy doing so, but that’s Dopers for you.) Because of this, yeah, it’s usually a good idea to have a handle on the reputation of anything you want to recommend before you do so.>>

It’s amusing that I’m being “called on it” by people who haven’t read the books and therefore can’t comment intelligently on the main topic so they look for side issues. But I’ll consider your suggestion next time I’m on some “official”, “panties in a wad”, forum.

I don’t agree that the entire book is widely regarded as nonsense or wrong. Specifically because the portion I referred to cannot be disproved. You might perhaps assemble/arrange the data differently to suit your own personal outcome; or, you may not agree with the author’s conclusions. But you can’t label that section as a hoax.

Furthermore, I think it’s a much better idea that you quit coming across so unprepared and uninformed on the main topic that all you can do is debate something so trivial. But by all means, continue. I don’t mind some verbal repertoire.

I had posted:

<Besides, whether I trust PhD committees has nothing to do with the points I am making>

You replied:

<<Points like this ?>>

To this previous post of mine:

<But you keep dismissing totally out of hand the fact that 3 PhD UCLA Anthropology professors didn’t think so. Are you saying these professors were total idiots, yet were on the scene, but you and others know better?>

I’m not quite sure of the connection you are trying to make here. The pertinent points I am making are based on the contents of his works; which, (and I hate to keep bringing up this glaring shortcoming of yours but…) I have read, s-e-v-e-r-a-l times, all 10 of them (I even read the Spanish versions of The Teachings and Journey to Ixtlan), and not whether you or anyone else feels he shouldn’t have received his PhD.

You wrote:

<<And, no, nobody is suggesting that they were idiots, just that they hadn’t had a chance to replicate the fieldwork, so there was inevitably stuff they had to take on trust.>>

Hmmmm. Now why would they trust Carlos’s work? Perhaps because it came across so believable and credible. Is this where you think you “have me” regarding trusting PhD committees? OK. Let me put it this way. I’ve no reason to distrust them. But whether I trust them or not really isn’t the issue. The issue is that he received a PhD from a respected university by a tenured PhD committee with obligations and reputations to uphold. And short of you accusing them of fraudulent behavior they should be given the benefit of the doubt. The world may indeed be ruled by the Trilateral (sp?) commission. But until I’ve been shown convincing evidence, I’ll withhold judgement. They (the committee) may all be members of a child pornography ring as far as I know and steal little ‘ole ladies’s purses for fun. Yet here, once again, you make another point for me. It is not only my opinion, but the opinion of many others, that we find it difficult to believe he could have made up a lot of what he wrote. But of course, how would you know, eh?

JWK posts:

<<No, just that, like most academics, they were only on the lookout for incomplete work and/or bad logic, and not fraud. Academics are among the easiest people in the world to scam, because the one thing they’re not prepared for is deliberate lies.>>

Do you have any specific examples you can present that have been proven to be fraudulent?