Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Paul's Sister in Paris, Kentucky?

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    Prometheus, I don t believe Paul Twitchell was born in 1922. Earlier I wrote: The official Eckankar Web site has a 1935 date for Paul Twitchell Meeting Sudar
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 11, 2009

      I don't believe Paul Twitchell was born in 1922.

      Earlier I wrote:

      "The official Eckankar Web site has a 1935 date for
      Paul Twitchell Meeting Sudar Singh (as early as). I
      think that was based on the pseudo 1922 D.O.B. for
      Paul Twitchell. I could be wrong."

      I don't know what that 1935 date was based on and
      I was guessing the pseudo 1922 D.O.B.

      About what Gail knew. I don't know that Doug's new
      book clarifies what D.O.B. Paul put on his marriage
      certificate to her. Doug also seemed not to believe it
      that Paul Twitchell ever lied about his age.

      However, if Gail ever learned that Paul graduated his
      high school in the latter 20's or early 30's, she would
      sure as hell realize Paul wasn't born in 1922.

      Maybe Gail didn't know that though. I'm not so sure.
      Regardless, the only way Paul Twitchell could be a
      teenager in 1935 (reported visit with Sudar Singh) is
      if he was born in 1922. I believe the 1922 D.O.B. is
      not accurate.

      Now, of course (if you believe Doug) Paul Twitchell
      never "lied" about his birth date.

      I don't agree with Doug about that. I agree with David
      Lane that Paul DID lie about his birth date.

      My guess is Doug Marman's position today - according
      to what I read - is that he neither admits nor denies that
      Paul T. ever lied. That is, I think he wants to have it both
      ways. Either that, or this was just Paul Twitchell having


      -----Original Message-----
      From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
      To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Fri, Dec 11, 2009 3:07 pm
      Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Paul's Sister in Paris,

      Hello Etznab,
      If you reread what Klemp stated
      on Eckankar.org you will see that
      HK says that Paul was 27 years
      old at the time of the Who's Who
      ploy. And, Klemp gives PT's birthdate
      as Oct. 22, 1908 - thus, the year
      is 1935.

      BTW- Klemp (LEM/Mahanta) states,
      on Eckankar.org, that Paul was
      "exaggerating" and "twisting facts"
      to get into Who's Who in Kentucky.
      Therefore, Rich Smith is calling
      Klemp a liar, or at the least that
      he's misinformed. It looks to me
      like a case of battling narcissists!

      BTW- Klemp states that PT's submissions
      (to be placed into Who's Who in Kentucky)
      were exaggerated and that PT twisted
      facts in the letter submitted. There
      was no "article" per se.

      Also, if you look at the dates given
      in the Who's Who in Kentucky info
      that you listed you will see the 1935
      date. And, the dates given for PT to
      be in Paris, Kentucky show that he
      was 20 years old when he arrived (1928)
      and 23 when he left (1931). Kay-
      Dee was 5 years older that Paul so
      she was 25-28 during (1928-31).

      Thus, we see that Paul lied about
      being 15 years old when he visited
      Kay-Dee in "Paris" and that he was
      misleading people about this being
      Paris, Kentucky versus Paris, France.

      Also, these lies are connected to
      other more significant lies. Thus,
      he couldn't have traveled to India
      with his sister, and Sudar, to receive
      his Second Initiation when he was
      15. Therefore, his second visit to
      India in 1951 to be initiated by
      Rebazar for the 3-12th initiations
      didn't happen either. It's all a lie.

      As far as Marman's spin... Paul was
      less than successful and that's why
      he started to plagiarize (early on)
      and to lie and exaggerate more and
      more. Writing occasional articles for
      "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" is not being
      "successful" as a writer.

      No, the 1935 date (age 27) was based
      on PT's birth year of 1908. Klemp leaned
      toward this one year (versus 1922) and
      uses this year on the copyright page of
      the Combined Shariyats.

      BTW- There is no such thing as "undeniable
      proof" for some people when we're talking
      about the life and times of a liar, conman,
      and self-promoter like Twitchell. It's
      undeniable to me and probably to millions
      of others, but for some people there is
      never enough proof. St. Thomas comes
      to mind, but in PT's case that wouldn't
      help either. And, Gail was as much a Co-
      conspirator of the fraud as he was so
      her account wouldn't have any value

      Once again, PT was born in 1908!
      I just don't see why you are believing
      the 1922 lie! Just because he gave this
      date on his marriage license is no proof!
      Patti said that she and Gail used to laugh
      when Paul would get all huffy about being
      asked about his age or birthdate. That's
      because he had lied to Gail in order to
      make himself not seem as old as he was.
      There's a big difference between being
      born in 1908 and 1941. 1922 and 1941
      is a big gap too but was not as outlandish
      as Paul being 33 years her senior! Think
      about it!


      etznab wrote:

      Thanks Prometheus.

      Thought I saw something on here once about the
      college that Kay-Dee went to. Maybe not.

      The Who's Who article illustrates Paul T. was in
      Paris Kentucky in 1929. I believe.

      Rich Smith indicated on A.R.E. recently the Who's
      Who article was all true. I think.

      "You know that _after_ Harold gave that talk, two
      Eckists went to Paducah KY and in the Library
      found people, documents, and records that showed
      that none of that Who's Who {which Paul didn't have
      anything to do with} was exaggerated or twisted. It
      was all true."


      Why do you suppose Harold used the words ex-
      aggerated and twisted? Was Harold referring to
      a different Who's Who article written up by Paul?
      Or a carbon copy of something written by Paul?

      The section of the Who's Who article I have is just
      a bunch of places and dates.

      "Twitchell, John Paul, director municipal recreation;
      b. Paducah, Ky., Oca, 22, 1908; s. Jacob Noah and
      Effie Dorothy Twitchell; ed. Augusta Tilghman H. S.,
      grad. 1928; Physical dir. Y.M.C.A., Paducah, Ky.,
      1928-31; Paris Ky., 1929; track Coach, Tilghman H. S.,
      Paducah, 1929-30-31; athletic director Murray State
      Teachers Coll., 1931-33; Western State Teachers Coll.,
      Bowling Green, Ky., 1933-35; asst. director Ohio State
      Univ., fall of 1935; municipal recreation director, Paducah,
      since 1935. Contributor of articles to Athletic Journal.
      Office: Campbell Bldg. Mome[sic]: 1625 North Twelfth
      St., Paducah, Ky." [Based on: Who's Who in Kentucky,

      If that were all true then I wonder what Harold was re-
      ferring to? Maybe something else?

      Here is something from Doug Marman on the subject:

      "Paul apparently had a very productive career as an
      athletic director, right out of high school, on through
      college, and into his mid-twenties. This seems to be
      where Paul first developed his skills as a promoter
      and leader, since the files hold pages and pages of
      news stories about his efforts in those days. It appears
      that Paul was quite successful in this early career of


      Pages and pages of news stories?

      I'm not sure what years those stories refer to. How
      much of the 1920's when Paul Twitchell was a teen-
      ager (if born between 1908-1910). However, if Paul
      had, in fact, gone to Paris, France and / or India as
      a teenager then wouldn't those pages and pages
      mention something about it? Even after the fact?

      Apparently, the Who's Who article does not speak
      about Paul Twitchell's high school years of 14-16
      years old (The early 20's). The quoted section has
      his date of graduation as 1928.

      I'm trying to find something that is undeniable about
      places and dates where Paul Twitchell resided as a
      teenager. Whether any evidence for a physical trip
      to France, or India.

      The official Eckankar Web site has a 1935 date for
      Paul Twitchell Meeting Sudar Singh (as early as). I
      think that was based on the pseudo 1922 D.O.B. for
      Paul Twitchell. I could be wrong.

      So far, I can see a Who's Who article which puts
      Paul in Paris, Kentucky in 1929. Apparently right
      after graduating High School.

      There should be a record for Kay-Dee's college att-
      endence and the dates. I'm going to try and find
      what I can about that.


      Prometheus wrote:

      Hello Etznab,
      I'm not sure as to when PT claimed
      his sister was in Paris (Kentucky)
      studying art with the masters. He
      was such a liar! But when one mixes
      some truth with a lie the lie sounds
      more convincing.

      However, since his sister was
      five years older than he (1908)
      that means she was born in
      1903 and would probably have
      been 20 years old when at school
      for Paul's "visit."

      Thus, this would make it 1923.
      The timeline of this visit, also,
      corresponds to the events given
      on page 48 of "Difficulties." After
      PT's visit with his sister in "Paris"
      he claims they both went to India
      with Sudar Singh. Paul states,
      "After I had left India, came home,
      I was then ABOUT sixteen."

      Of course Klemp claims that PT
      was "exaggerating" and "twisting
      facts" at age 27 (in 1935) to get
      into Who's Who in Kentucky, and
      had never been too far from home.

      Also, the only college in Paris,
      Kentucky, at the time, was Berea
      College which was established
      in 1855.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.