Path: Supernews70!Supernews73!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.gte.net!nntp.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3522B80E.C3DA8BBB@texas.net> From: "J. Karlin" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.tarot,alt.magick Subject: Re: Did Crowley choose Grant as heir to OHO? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <351EBCEC.6B7160D9@texas.net> <6fn1sa$clj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35210688.FEECB0@texas.net> <6ftlsl$dko$1@was.hooked.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 251 Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 21:57:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.207.2.152 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 15:57:26 CST Xref: Supernews70 alt.tarot:27649 alt.magick:133198 Bill Heidrick wrote: > >Well, it looks like an effort from an old and strained hand. > > Possibly, but definitely not Crowley's. Not so 'definite'. > Some of the letters are like > his, although most are not. Bill, that comment doesn't even make sense. Crowley was NOT a disciplined writer (or anything?). He shows great variation in his style of lettering even within a single document---sometimes between one word and the next. > Samples of Crowley's handwriting from > 1947 e.v. do not match this. Actually, there is one way in which this letter matches Crowley's handwriting all the way back to when he was a spry 45 or so (that's how far back I looked today). > The progression of Crowley's handwriting > over the years is not in this direction -- What do you mean 'progression'? > letters tended to become > less distinct rather than more recognizable as in this case. That simply isn't true. I examined letters today which were very late (up to 1947) and what is surprising is that his writing remained reasonably strong and clear (for Crowley anyway) up until his last year. There is however one important exception to this. > The character of the handwriting, as distinct from the shape of the > letters, is wrong. This script is more pointed or sharp in the tops > of the letters than is seen in extant Crowley holograph. No. There are some examples of Crowley's writing which match the look of this letter exactly. I saw them today. > If the > appearance of this writing came from age or illness, it would be > shakey rather than steady. What if the appearance came from something else? > It slopes on lines but is too regular for > the hand of a sick man with Crowley's known examples of holograph > attesting illness at the time of writing. 'ill' is not the same as 'dying' (I'm pretty sure). A person who is VERY old and within 5 weeks or so of death might not write in a 'normal' fashion. However, I think there may be another explanation (note: possible explanation---I'm still not convinced the thing is legit either). > >You should compare it to the handwritten copies of > >Liber AL. > > Very many differences in letter shape, Precisely, within Liber AL you see all kinds of variations. Within most peoples' writings but particularly AC's you see lots of variations. > although that sample is under > unusual circumstances 43 years earlier. And this also would be under 'unusual circumstances' 43 years later. > Better to compare to samples > from the mid 40's to 1947 e.v. No significant match to either earlier > or later Crowley hand. I disagree. Indeed, IF the thing is an electronic forgery, as Starr has suggested, we SHOULD find a 'significant' match to Crowley's hand. > > One thing about Crowley, he was consistently > >inconsistent in his handwriting, and even this is matched > >in the document in question. > > No known specimen (to me, and I have viewed hundreds) of Crowley's > writing comes anywhere near this variation from his norm. Funny how I found several today, without trying too hard either. > His shaping > of letters is consistent, On the contrary, the man was a slob. His handwriting is awful, and it shows up in his inability to maintain a consistent lettering. > allowing for differences in time and effort, > to be clear. There are many carefully formed letters in this document > that are shaped in a manner never seen in known specimens of Crowley > holograph. Specify. What 'carefully formed letters' have you never seen before that are in this document? > The runs, pseudo > caps, ligatures and flow are not Crowley's. Please be specific---what words or 'runs' or 'flows' do you find questionable. > >> It would be interesting to know the provenance of the document. > > >I've been trying to determine that myself. So far, no luck. > > That's crucial. That's not news. > Apart from the document's character, errors of fact, > errors of form and handwriting, if this was done, what was done with > it? I'm curious, what kind of evidence will you accept that would prove to you this document is the 'real thing'? > My files contain documents I have prepared as drafts, never sent and > never committed. The same can be found in Grady McMurtry's papers, > Karl Germer's papers and the papers of administrators generally. This > document appears to be intended for Karl Germer, Actually, it seems to take the form of a general statement, almost like an addendum to the will. > although a copy to > Grant would not have been unusual. Where is the final form? Why isn't this likely to have been the 'final form'? It appears to bear his seal. Did AC seal drafts? > Crowley > usually caused such documents to be typed from dictation or written > draft in his later years. Not always, there are certainly examples of such documents having been handwritten 'in his later years'. > >Not to the office of OHO. That word IS however used in this > >document. It's possible that Crowley only at the very end > >of things made up his mind. > > Crowley declaired Germer to be his successor in a document sent in > April of 1947 e.v. ...a document sent to whom? Surely not to Germer, because Crowley had to explain the facts to Germer a couple of months after April of 1947 when Germer was still unclear about this. Crowley only told Germer what he thought Germer needed to know---and that, as we know, wasn't enough. Furthermore, Germer was quite certain that he was NOT the OHO, but was rather STILL the Grand Treasurer General in 1949. > Grant and others who did work for Crowley would > have had access to stock, as would his executors. So are you accusing Grant (or one of the executors) of forging the letter? Or just what is your point here? > >> I have never seen Mr. Grant claim successor status based on any document from > >> AC's hand, > > >Why would he, if he is the true OHO? Do you see? > > Not helpful to the document as an observation. ? > Grant publically claimed to be OHO. But when did he first do that? > He produced letters from Crowley to demonstrate > his ties to Crowley, publishing those letters. He wrote to me stating > in clear terms that he had no document recognizing high degree from > Crowley. Yeah, I don't see how he would have obtained such a document since he ended up informing Germer that he had learned the 'big secret' only after he was let in (Germer thought by John Symonds) to view Crowley's documents after AC's death. On the other hand, Germer asked Symonds the 'circumstances' by which Grant's revelation took place. Perhaps the 'circumstances' had something to do with the literary executors finding 'the document'. It would certainly help to further explain their attitude toward Germer. > Of all the documents Grant has published to attempt to show > his standing, he has stated that he had none giving authority from > Crowley and has not published this one. And I think that's the most interesting question of all---if the document is legitimate---where's it been living for 50 years and why did no one bring it forward till now? > >These matters of battling over who is head cheese of the Order > >have become so public, and so mundanely legal, in the last 20 years > >that we might forget that only a few are supposed to know the > >true identity of the true OHO (indeed, some would claim that > >'identity' is entirely ethereal, not manifested physically > >or obviously at all). > > Next issue. This document mandates conditions and events not met. It > does not make Grant anything, until both Grant and Germer do something > which they did not in fact do. No, they didn't. Indeed, Germer seems to have not known anything about it at all (if there was anything to know). But one would simply point out that Germer was generally kept in the dark by just about everyone. > Germer did the opposite, expelling > Grant. I think Germer did not have the authority to do that. He was not OHO of the Order. > Germer is over 30 years dead. Too late. Nope, according to 'the document' all Germer's role in it involved was giving up any Crowley documents to Grant (as soon as Grant claimed OHO). > >Wouldn't it be interesting if everyone (of consequence) had been > >lying all these years about the details of the succession? > > Obviously, someone has. The question for the courts is who? Speaking of which, are you litigating against Symonds---finally? > Nothing > said here can settle that. Nothing on Usenet gets settled---but it does get UNsettled quite often. > Who would appear to benefit from this > document, introduced only at a time when events are moving and so long > after it could have done anything of significance? OTO has not faked > this to discredit Grant. Who said you did? But now that you mention it, that would be a possible explanation, if it turns out to be a forgery. > Who has? I love mysteries---that's why I keep reading this interactive story. > >I've wondered about this myself---why would Grant not take the > >opportunity to avail himself of this document before now? Maybe > >he felt no need to do that. Or perhaps he had no knowledge of > >its existence. > > His writings evidence need. Does seem that way---but it's possible, armed with the silver bullet, he decided to wait until the Caliphate vampire came calling before loading it and firing. > Apart from all that has been said, the document contains errors of > fact and form most unlikely to be committed by Crowley. Even the > folds are wrong. Given the size of the known stationary with this > lamen used by Crowley, folding in half was done. Who says Crowley folded it? He may only have written it. Or not. (jk)