Steve R. Writes:

"For example:  Lane sees 1922 on Paul's death certificate when Paul's
birthdate was likely 1912.

David Lane replies:

Steve, it is not a question of what I "see"; the death certificate
clearly lists his age as 48 and that he was born on October 22,
1922. I didn't make this up, nor did I make up the fact that Jack
Jarvis in an "interview" of Paul Twitchell says that Paul "just
turned 40" in 1963 (do the math again). Please also read Steiger's
timeline again; it clearly suggests a 1920s birthdate. These are
three "pro" Eckankar sources. I didn't draw them out of a hat.

Steve R. writes:

He assumes from this that Paul lied to his
wife (Gail).

David Lane writes:

Steve, listen again very carefully: Gail is listed as the informant
on Twitchell's death certificate. She lists his age as 48; she says
he was born on October 22, 1922. Jack Jarvis, some 8 years prior,
indicates the same thing about Twitchell's age. Brad Steiger's
timeline is consistent with both Jarvis and Gail.

We already know Paul was "miss-taken" if you think that 1912 is the correct
date, which you repeatedly state. Why? Because Paul Twitchell in
1933 (September) states to the Registrar at Western Kentucky
University that he was "22." Well, do some simple math.

This would point blank contradict the 1912 birthdate that you keep
bantering about.

Why? Let's see:

If Paul was 22 in 1933 in September, then that means he was born
in 1910 (not 1912)

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt:

If Paul was 22 in 1933 (and he said it since his birthday was coming
up in October), then that means he was born
in 1911 (not 1912).

In both cases, whether we are strict or generous, Twitchell chooses
to inform the Registrar that he was born in 1910 or 1911, but NOT

Now let's go back to that infamous 1922 birthdate which you state is
a "typo." Twitchell's own record to the Registrar does not support
your contention (it is 1910 by the strict guidelines), nor Harold
Klemp, the living Eck Master (he uses 1908 as his working base).

Moreover, let us think of the "odds" that Jarvis, Gail, and also
Steiger's account would use a 1920s birthdate..... Who informed
Jarvis? Who informed Steiger? Who informed Gail?

I have a very simple answer: Paul Twitchell.

And when Paul Twitchell "informed" the Registrar he did NOT give a
1912 birthdate, but rather a 1910 one.

In either case--if you want to hold onto your 1912
birthdate--Twitchell is "miss-taken". Now I realize that you don't like the
word mistaken or the word plagiarism, but that's precisely what it is.

However, I do agree with Joseph Polanik and others that we can argue
and debate about "why" Twitchell changed his birthdate, and I think
that is a fair game.

Your "typo" hypothesis is wrong, not by my reckoning but by
Twitchell's own record, if not by your own living Master, Harji.

Steve R. writes:

In another place he suggests that this same
deceived wife was sent by Paul to collect and coverup evidence of his
personal history.  This is contradictory. 

David Lane replies:

Steve, I realize that I am 40+ and I may be losing my memory, but
can you please tell me exactly where "I" said the above statement
that you suggest? It is not in the MAKING and if it is stated some
place, I would imagine it would not be by me. Please tell me, again,
exactly where I stated this.

Steve R. writes:

My suggestion was that "1922" was simply a typo for "1912".  I have no
more or less evidence to support  this suggestion than Lane does.  I
merely offered it as an alternative and to demonstrate that Lane fails
to consider alternatives.

David Lane replies:

Actually, Steve, you have no evidence for your typo hypothesis.
I do clearly have evidence for my "1922" birthdate of Paul Twitchell
(his death certificate and Jack Jarvis' published and acknowledged
interview of Paul Twitchell in 1963).

To suggest that that we have "even" evidence is not merely
inaccurate, but completely untrue.

I don't mind considering alternative hypotheses.... It is fun to do
so. However, this "typo" defense of Twitchell has no legs, as I just
demonstrated to you.

Joseph Polanik who disagrees with many things I have written has
also pointed this out to you before.

We may disagree over motivation, but I don't think you can get
around the discrepancy with a "typo" defense that even Twitchell's
own college records contradict.

Finally, I mentioned trying to secure getting Paul's driver's
license only to add to the body of evidence so that you may be
doubly convinced. I didn't even think about it until you mentioned
that you dismissed the Jarvis' interview, Steiger's timeline, and
the Death certificate--not to mention Paul's own statement
contradicting the 1912 birthdate to the Registrar.

Steve R. Writes:

My advice is to look closely at Lane's own writing and try to be
objective.  When he makes a statement like "in order to impress his
young wife", ask, is there any substance to this allusion or is it a
mere fabrication.  When he cites Paul's brother in law as claiming
that Paul's biography was "an atrocious lie" question why Lane didn't
use the whole quote (it shows that the man was referring mainly to
comments Paull made about his stepmother, "a good Christian woman".)

David Lane replies:

Steve, why don't you try putting the whole sentence in here so the
reader can see what I actually said? Moreover, why don't you cite
the sentence as it actually appears?

"presumably [please note that word, Steve, because it alerts the
reader to the "tentativness" of what follows] to convince [not
"impress" as you state] his young wife that he was not too much 
older than herself." 

What am I "presumably" talking about?

The fact that Paul Twitchell changed his age (Jarvis has him as 40
in 1963, and Gail has him as 48 in 1971 on his death certificate;
Steiger also uses a 1920s birthdate timeline) by cutting at least  
10 years, if not more, off his real biological age.

Now the first printed reference that I found to Paul being 10+ years
years younger is in Jack Jarvis 1963 published interview of Paul
Twitchell for the Seattle Post Intelligencer. 

We know that Paul was dating a very young woman at the time, Gail.
How old was Gail at the time? 20? or so? How old was Paul in terms
of his real vs. imagined birthdate? 50+.

Okay, so my "presumably" is that Paul changed his age to convince his
young wife that he was not THAT much older..... We know from
experience that people--both women and men--have done this to
attract mates.

Clearly, we can debate this issue and come up with alternative
theories, as Joseph Polanik and others have suggested.

But I still stand by my "presumably."

I think many others can see the logic of why I would think so.

Now turning our attention once again to Paul Iverlet's assertion
that Brad Steiger's biography was an atrocious lie. Let us see once
again where I put that quote in the MAKING. It comes right after
Steiger's claim that Twitchell was born out of wedlock to a Mrs.

Here's what I say right after that:

"Paul Iverlet, however, strongly disagrees with Steiger's account
of the Twitchell family and calls it an atrocious lie."

Hmm, Steve, let us review what is "accurate" in Steiger's account:

1. Paul was born in China Point (NOPE--try Paducah)
2. Paul graduated high school at 15 (NOPE--try 18 to 23?)
3. Paul was 15/16 when his mom, Effie, died (NOPE--try approaching
4. Paul went to India with his sister, Kay-Dee, at 15/16 (NOPE)
5. Paul saw Action in the war (NOPE--not according to Harold Klemp)


Not very good for Steiger, and I can well understand why Iverlet
thought Steiger's account was a lie. 


But that's not where I start and that's not where I end.

We have lots of evidence, even from Harold himself, which points to
the "fictional" nature of Steiger's account.

Yet, that book sold hundreds of thousands of copies and led many
people to believe a "false" history (and we do mean false history)
about Paul Twitchell......

False advertising?


Keep ripping, Steve

Steve R. Writes:

"And as Joseph and Mark have recently very clearly shown, Lane
exaggerates and magnifies his examples. One passage becomes four
paragraphs.  One example becomes four.  There is a real accounting
problem in Lane's reporting."  

David Lane replies:

Steve, do you ever read my rejoinders? I don't need to exaggerate or
magnify my examples of Twitchell's plagiarism. By a very
conservative estimate, there are over 400 paragraphs Twitchell
cribbed from Johnson in the book THE FAR COUNTRY.
Try doing it for yourself. I will make you a guarantee: you will 
find MORE than 400 in that book alone. I couldn't keep tracking them
all since I got tired.

As for the example you cite--which was from the FLUTE of God (where
I argued that Twitchell cribbed Hazrat Inayat Khan's book, THE
MYSTICISM OF SOUND)--there was nothing mysterious about what I was
trying to do. As I replied to Joseph, I simply divided up the
samples to make easier reading. That's all. Geez, I already have a
truck load of samples I can pull out if I want to "overload" you.

Mark and I didn't disagree about the fact of plagiarism; we
over the real source. Was it Johnson's quote of Khan in the PATH, as
Mark pointed out; or was Twitchell cribbing directly from Khan, as
I argued.

We both agreed that it was Khan; we diagreed on the
source--secondary (quote from Johnson) or primary (quote from Khan

Mark gave us some very convincing arguments about why it was Johnson
and not Khan (I even pointed to the Preface of PATH where another
Khan quote appears to buttress Mark's contention). I, on the other
hand, argued that Twitchell went to the well directly in this case.

But please notice something: Mark and I are not disagreeing about
the plagiarism. Mark felt that I should have pointed to Johnson as
the source and I explained at length about how I had moved from
Johnson to Khan.

I found Mark's argument to be quite interesting and I think a
healthy one.

But this charge of "exaggerating" plagiarism is simply not true.

If you wish, I can put 100 more examples (each a paragraph) of
Twitchell's plagiarism. Better yet, just get WITH A GREAT MASTER
IN INDIA AND PATH OF THE MASTERS and compare them to Shariyat,
FAR Country, Tiger's Fang, Eckankar--the Key to Secret Worlds,
In My Soul I am Free, etc.

You will find many more examples than I have ever unearthed.

Steve Writes:

I read David Lane's latest about the imperfection of gurus and have to
laugh.  Had he listened to the Eckankar teachings 20 years ago instead
ot trying to tear down the teacher, he could have saved himself alot
of time.
What he says in this latest essay is what Eckankar has
always taught.  The Eck Masters are people, just like you and I, no
different, except in the state of consciousness that they are able to
maintain.  He writes about Kirpal Singh drinking coke.  Years ago I
heard Millie Moore talk about serving the Living Eck Master fried
chicken and mashed potatoes!

David Lane replies:

Steve, THE GURU HAS NO TURBAN was not about Eckankar, so I don't
know how I could have saved myself a lot of time..... 

I have always held the view that Masters were human. I came
out with the UNKNOWING SAGE in 1981.

The reason I came out with the Guru has No Turban essay is because
it is an issue that needs to be more fully explored.

Since you want to bring Eckankar into this issue, then let me ask
you once again: "In what year did Darwin Gross embezzle the money
from Eckankar?"

I have already given you the date that he started the "front"
company (Eckankar's words, not mine). It was in 1980.

Darwin Gross had the "Rod" then.

Can a Living Eck Master--during his reign--embezzle money?

I think you get my drift.

I have an answer.

What's yours?