The December 1996 Eckankar Debates, part three

Author: David Christopher Lane
Publisher: Alt.religion.eckankar
Publication date: 1996

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.

Steve R. Writes:

"a. No one can prove or disprove what is in someone else's heart."

LANE replies:

That's why we rely on documents and they can show us several
interesting things.
Like this: Twitchell says he graduated at 15, but he didn't (much
more like 18+).
Just compare Twitchell's claims with the record and you will see
his duplicity.

Steve R. writes:

"b. Lane takes facts which by themselves  prove nothing and surrounds
them with innuendo and allusion to the extent that they appear to
prove something which is unprovable."

LANE replies:

No, Steve, I have demonstrated quite clearly that Twitchell lied,
that he plagiarized, that he covered-up. These can be proven quite
easily and have been.

No need for allusion or innuendo when you have Twitchell himself
making up new dates, when you have Twitchell himself doing new name
replacements, when you have the Twitch himself coming up with weak
excuses to deny his past associations (hey forgery?--yea that's what
happened with Kirpal Singh..... I get it now.)

It is quite provable to demonstrate that Twitchell lied.

Look at his own testimony and compare with his later testimony.

Good luck.

STEVE R. writes:

c. Lane tries to prove his point by example, by anecdote.  Any basic
text on research methods will tell you that this proves nothing. Any
anecdote or example can be explained in a number of ways.  Adding more
anecdotes doesn't make the proof any more solid.  


No need to resort to ancedotes when you have the documents. Have you
seen his death certificate? Have you seen his photograph with Kirpal
Singh. Have you personally seen the original Orion magazines?

Keep talking ancedotes, Steve; I will keep talking documents.

Steve R. writes:

"d. A biased researcher, as Lane admittedly is, will only present those
*facts* that support his position.  Lane presents only a partial
picture - like the Mona Lisa with only the black paint."

DAVID LANE replies:

Better read more carefully. That is why i give Gross's side, Klemp's
side, and even put on the very first page Eckankar's official
critique of my work.

I even include a whole list of their books.

Oh yea, that's right, Twitchell was the guy who cited Johnson
profusely in FAR Country..... Yea, and Klemp cited MAKING when he
cited the source on Camille..... yea........ 

They did neither.......


Steve R. writes:

"e. Even if what Lane suggests were true, it would have no bearing on
the inner experiences of Eckists."

LANE writes:

No bearing? So if Paul lies then it does not matter.

I get it. It's called check your brains in at the door before

Steve R. writes:

"f. Anyone who wants to read David Lane's material should be free to do
so, but would do well to remember these guidelines to critical

DAVID LANE replies:

I have a better plan. Why not let them read it for themselves?

That way they can make their own mind up.

Oh, do you want to list it as well in the back of ECK-Vidya?

Nope, but I include full citations of Eck books in mine.

Two way street?

No, just keep closing the alley.

STEVE R. writes:

"2. Ask yourself "What are the facts here?"  Throughout his writing
Lane contradicts himself.  For example he uses Brad Steiger as one of
his three primary sources for Paul saying that he was born in 1922,
but within a few lines he states that Steiger doesn't mention a
specific date.  Going back to the original book it turns out that one
has to use a little stretch to jump from Paul being a teenager to the
beginning of World War II. The passages can be read to support either

DAVID LANE replies:

Are you really this dishonest in replying to people?

Steiger says that Paul Twitchell was with his mother when she died
in 1940. He also says that Paul was a teenager. No need to stretch
your imagination, Steve. Let's do a little math: teenager in 1940.

Guess what? We are talking a 1920s birthdate, bro.

It says it in the book. Try reading it sometime.

"3. Ask, "Is there any real evidence here or is this only second hand
hearsay?"  Lane, for example, cites Paul's brother in law saying:
"Paul Iverlet, however, strongly disagrees with Steiger's account of
the Twitchell family and calls it an 'atrocious lie.' "  Notice that
he doesn't give us much to work with here.  There are no in context
quotes and the source is not necessarily reliable. Neither does David
tell us just what "atrocious lie" Iverlet is referring to."

LANE replies:

Try reading the letter. It has been available for years and I put it
online just for you.

Steve Writes:

"4. Beware of innuendo.  David's work is rife with them.  For example
he writes: 
>Nevertheless, these two documents do summarily indicate that the "1922"
>birth date was a fabrication made years later by Paul, presumably to
>convince his young wife, Gail, that he was not too much older than
Lane has no special insight into what was going on in Paul Twitchell's
head.  Such insinuations have no place in legitimate research."

LANE replies:

Try reading the death certificate, try reading Jarvis statement, and
trying reading Steiger. When did Twitchell fabricate this new
birthdate? I argued that it was presumably (don't forget that word,
Steve, it may come back to haunt you) due to Gail's young age.

She is the one who says he died at 48.

By the way, Steve, how old was Gail when Twitch met her?

Steve R. Writes:

"5. Beware of non-sequitors.  Lanes writing is full of phrases which
carry a negative connotation, but refer to nothing.  For example, Lane
states "Steiger, coincidentally, makes no reference whatsoever to
Twitchell's college career in his biography."  This line has no
relation to anything else, but given the general tenor of the
surrounding text the unaware reader is left with the suggestion that
there was some sinister reason for the oversight."

DAVID LANE replies:

Didn't you yourself say that you considered Steiger's book, the
"National Enquirer" approach?

Moreover, do take a close look at Twitchell's school records; they
contradict Steiger at each turn.

Yes, indeed, there is something sinister going on.

Twitchell is systematically bullshitting his audience and you
somehow want to condone it.

good luck.

Steve R. writes:

"6. Do not allow yourself to be persuaded by the volume alone.  You
can't make a manure pile smell any better by piling more manure on it."

LANE replies:

Hey, manure expert, I am not the guy reposting a piece which has
critiqued and shown to be wanting. You have reposted this same stuff
and I have shown you where you were wrong.

You just don't read very well.

Steve, your continued reposts have actually inspired me once again.

sorry to tell you this, but I have documents and more documents
to show........

Let the reader be fully informed.


Steve R. writes:

"Aside from Lane's completely speculative accusations, I see no
discrepency between what Harold has said publically and the actual
facts that Lane brings up.  It is Lane's conclusions and fabrications
that I object to."

LANE responds:

Fabrications? Steve, you are the one bantering about "typos" with no
proof. I can show you a death certificate. I don't mind your
critiques, but everybody on this newsgroup would be better served if
you were more accurate in your rips. I have fabricated nothing; you
can follow my trail and see why I have stated such and such.

We can debate interpretations, and that's the fun part.

But fabrications? You better put that dog on Twitchell's doorstep.
There is no room at my home for him.

Steve R. Writes:

"... facts that Lane presents to be fascinating.  The problem
with Lane is sorting out the facts from the fabrication.  (And please
David L, do not bore us with line after line of Julian Johnson/Paul
Twitchell.  I am talking about the context that you fabricate to
showcase your facts.)"

LANE responds:

Showcase? I list my sources, list my documents, tell you exactly
where I am drawing my observations and then even give you Eckankar's
"official" version on plagiarism, on Kirpal Singh, on Darwin, and
the like. I even put Eckankar's official response to my work on the
very first page of the printed text. Try reading it.   

Has Klemp given you the official "Kirpal Singh" version of events?

Oh yea, that's right..... let's pull out "forgery" as an excuse for

Sorry you are bored, but I didn't come up with the typo defense.
You did and it doesn't work.

P.S. Keep up your doubting, though, since I do actually think it is
very helpful to all concerned. It at least allows people to think
deeper about the subject. You are a nice foil, and for that I am
very appreciative to you personally.


Glen Writes:

"Yes David, this is a good point. 
Actually, another good point is that you tend to not respond to the good

DAVID LANE responds:

Please feel most free to call my attention to something you think I
have not responded to. I try to reply to everything that is
pertinent or directed to me. Given the variety of news servers,
sometimes posts are not read or lost or forgotten. For instance, I
did reply to Mark's request (I have reposted it for you to see).

I think it is very helpful for you and others to call my attention
to any point you wish discussed or clarified. Naturally, one may not
like my response, but I will always try to address whatever concern
or question or doubt or critique you may have.

I like dialogues, exchanges, debates, and even arguments.

Name the point and I will do my best to respond.

thank you......


E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.