MISLEADING CLAIMS AGAINST MY
by Basava Premanand
SECOND CRITICISM is made under "ExBaba.com:
Deception" also in the page
GM : It is important that magician tricks be divulged to the general public so that they won't be duped by frauds. In this article, Premanand giving false estimations regarding Sathya Sai Baba's assets. He has no proof to back up these estimates. Another unsubstantiated claim from a "rationalist" and believer in science (supposedly)
Reply : Magicians are artists who give shows to
entertain the audience do not claim that their tricks are miracles, nor
do they dupe the general public. It is the frauds who claim to be gods
or agents of god who dupe the general public by showing tricks as miracles.
To prove that my figure of $ 1.7 billion is false, Moreno should know the correct figure from Sathya Sai Baba's balance sheet for 2004. Before he can tell that the figure is not true he has the responsibility to prove that it is false. Without knowing the correct figure how could he conclude that my figures are false?
Robert Priddy has informed on his website: "The UK magazine The Economist had a front page notice about the 'Sai Baba Empire' back in early 1990, where they estimated his assets at over US$2 billion. They also reckoned him to be the No. 1 foreign exchange earner in India at that time! That estimate must have been based on known or visible assets " Conservative calculations put the current total figure much higher than two billion. For example, Isaac Tigrett contributed US $39 million to the Puttaparthi Hospital. The Canadian metal dealer, James Sinclair, alone contributed US $600 million in 1990 as announced by Indulal Shah at the 70th birthday celebrations. Sai Baba stated in a discourse that a donation of 100 crores was received anonymously from New York (see p. 82. Sathya Sai Speaks, Vol. XXVII).
Moreno has taken one line of mine,
without regard for all the rest. To the unwary, Moreno may appear to be
a genuine investigator. Yet he seizes on a single points - too often not
accuratelyl! - and weaves a whole distortion from it, drawing unsupported
conclusions, and - worst of all - slandering his opponent.
Continue to second round of comments on the above article