by Basava Premanand   

Reply to Gerald Moreno's claims from Comments by Gèrald Morèno - An Indian Sceptic's explanation of miracles see at - October 2004)

Gerald Moreno's comments appear after 'GM' in bold black face and mine in regular case navy blue type.


GM : Of course I knew that Premanand was not the author to this article. That is why I said, "This article talks about Basava Premanand".

Reply : Why did Gerald Moreno not complete his statement here, as he made it before with: "who is well known for spreading lies and conspiracy theories, against Sathya Sai Baba?" Is this not faking and slander? Where am I "well known" for what you falsely and slanderously allege, to whom, in which media etc. Put some 'click here' links if you can! I am however quite well known for exposing fakes in various media, such as onNational Geographic TV Channel, BBC TV etc? No such programme has ever been made about me as 'spreading lies and conspiracy theories'.

GM : The article was written by Tanya Datta. However, my comment was not based solely on this article. Rather, it was based on both this article and Premanand's own words from the Secret Swami Documentary. Since the quote was mistyped, I corrected it.

Reply : Why did GM not mention this in the article, if his reply was not based solely on this article? When the quote is taken from 'The Secret Swami' and GM knew it already, it is suspicious that he 'mistyped'? It ought to have been corrected before putting it on the web site. This is very like faking about the "God-man or Con-man" article ?
Yes I have stated in Secret Swami 10.46.51 : "The only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths that was Sai Baba", but GM evaded to quote the earlier statement of Tanya Datta (at 10:46:42) : "Critics say police connection ensured that Sai Baba wasn’t even interviewed despite being one of the witnesses to the events that night. GM should remember that the article 'Godman or Conman' was authored by Tanya Datta and she was the interviewer in Secret Swami documentary also.

GM : It now reads: "An article re-hashing the same points over and over. This article talks about Basava Premanand, who is well known for spreading lies and conspiracy theories, against Sathya Sai Baba".

Reply : It is not me who authored Tanya Datta's article, so what relevance has it to add his demeaning comments on me. Just another baseless attack to imprint the idea on readers' minds! As to re-hashing, GM is no person to talk for he proves to full satisfaction that he is the greatest re-hasher in this very reply below, which will be seen as we proceed. Rather than me, GM should instead question Sathya Sai Baba to why he is constantly rehashing and rehashing the same points on his life in all the books published on him.

GM : B Premanand also repeats the lie that, Sathya Sai Baba was "one of the key witnesses to the events of that night".

Reply : GM is trying to confuse readers yet again, this time making the completely false statement. It is not I who am lying but GM, in a bold-faced manner too! No one has to my knowledge denied that Sathya Sai Baba was present when the intruders were inside the mandir, was warned by a servitor whereupon he sounded the alarm, left his apartment (i.e. fled the murder scene) and locked the door from the outside. His own brother stated this, along with many others. Not even GM, who is so thorough in his denials. This alone is enough to make him a key witness, quite apart from the fact that he was nearby throughout the hours of the stand-off within his ashram, over which he exercise complete control. Four young men, devotees of a key witness, one of whom was regularly sleepijg in the mandir on Sathya Sai Baba's permission, were shot down in cold blood. Or does GM dispute even this known, documented fact? Where did he or any others prove that he was not one of the key witnesses of the events of that night. GM should do some actual research for once, instead of hair-splitting so as to cloud the truth.

GM : Premanand does not know this.

Reply : When GM states that Premanand does not know this, he should prove that there were no other witnesses to the murders, or to Sathya Sai Baba's presence in his bedroom etc. etc. But there were!

GM : He is speculating as can be seen on my article about Basava Premanand's conspiracy theory about the murders in 1993."

Reply : This article has been already refuted that all his speculations were based on his imagination wherein he never produced any proof, and he has himself made clear in a posting on FactNet that he did not read the book 'Murders in Sai Baba’s Bed Room'.

GM : I accidentally typed "the only key witness" instead of "one of the key witnesses".

Reply : So GM's statement discussed in this article is not true then, it is an error! Good to know that!. Now, had there been time for afterthought, I might have changed the word 'only' in my statement talking with Tanya Datta so the situation would have been clearer to viewers. But TV is a medium which one cannot control afterwards, like GM constantly does with his web pages.

GM : However, this does not change my opinion that Premanand lied about Sathya Sai Baba being a "witness".

Reply : On what basis did GM form this opinion? Was he one of the witnesses to the 6 murders? Does he have private access to Sathya Sai Baba to know this? Where is the proof, which is always lacking from his 'opinions'.?

GM : He does not know that. That is his sheer speculation.

Reply : Let anyone judge which of us is speculating without thorough research, proof and documentation?

GM : Click Here to view the correction. I have no idea what Premanand is talking about when he said, "he is an adept in faking even published newspaper articles". Premanand does not cite which "newspaper articles" I supposedly "faked". This accusation is totally unfounded and a bold-faced lie.

Reply : GM and his "bold-faced lies"! Already I have put on he web numerous articles replying to him where others can decide who is doing all the faking, him or I. When he makes convenient mistakes like writing 'the only witness' instead of 'one of the key witnesses' and is caught out, he 'corrects them'.

GM : What is amusing about this accusation is that all of the newspaper articles I cited (on my pages about Priddy and Premanand's conspiracy theories) were actually taken directly from Anti-Sai Sites! If Premanand claims that newspaper articles were "faked", he is actually casting aspersions on Anti-Sai Activists and accusing them of faking newspaper article.

Reply : What devious twists GM tries! GM is making himself look very foolish by this. Nowhere did I state that the newspaper articles were "faked" without making clear that this was by GM? Citing newspaper articles and then adding something which is not in them is not 'amusing'. How does he know who changed the words from "one of the key witnesses" to "the only key witness" in the news paper? I have a copy the article cited and find the words to be exact copy.

GM : Premanand accuses me with no proof (which is the same thing he does with Sathya Sai Baba).

Reply : Just one small proof is indicated in the above, though GM tries to squirm away from it. He is faking to hide the facts and the whole entire scenario around the murders in Sai Baba's bedroom, he is faking a conspiracy theory about the Hislop letters, he is faking when he tries by subterfuges to defend Sai Baba (who he admits he believes is a sexual abuser) by attacking those who stand forth, he is faking to defame Reinier van der Sandt and Barry Pittard most scandalously, for it is definitely completely untrue and sheer defamation and so on and so on...

GM : The newspaper articles I cited were taken from the following page (located on the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet: My comment about Premanand saying that Sathya Sai Baba was the "only key witness" was actually based on the Secret Swami Documentary.

Reply : How could GM say actually based on the Secret Swami documentary when his comments in the above were specifically based on Godman or Conman? Is he so confused or was he just faking to mislead and complicate further? Readers can decide.

GM : Premanand failed to remember his own words, recorded on video. The BBC transcript reads: "BASAVA PREMANAND: Rationalist & Author: The only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths, that was Sai Baba and he was not examined as, for evidence at all and those students also who were there, two or three students they were not examined at all." [Secret Swami, BBC Text Transcript: 10.46.51] Consequently, Premanand did say the "only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths, that was Sai Baba".

Reply : I do not fail to remember anything. The word 'only' was uttered there, but it was a bit like a slip of the tongue easily done in a live interview, and quite insignificant really, which is shown by the fact that, in the very same sentence I spoke of other witnesses.Besides, English is not my mother tongue, so I may not always be very clear under such circumstances. Why did GM not show the whole sentence, which was:
"The only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths, that was Sai Baba and he was not examined as, for evidence at all and those students also who were there, two or three students they were not examined at all" (from the BBC transcript). GM is fishing for a tiddler!

GM : Consequently, my comments were true although the quote I provided was mistyped. Unlike Anti-Sai Sites, I promptly corrected the typo. I corrected the mistype.

Reply : His comments lack proof, and happen to be entirely untrue too. It was certainly in GM's interest to alter his 'once convenient mistakes'. But what does GM mean by "Unlike Anti-Sai Sites"? GM has not given "click here" to prove his statement. Which sites, there are many to refer to? Is he saying that corrections are never made on exposé sites? Or they do not correct typos/mistypes promptly (enough for GM's liking)? What a stickler for trivial point-making? Meanwhile, he has many pages needing major corrections on his website, for the are jampacked with delusions, distortions, untruths, slander and more. For example, all the many points I and others have proved against him which he simply ignores or stubbornly denies without a figment of fact. They are too many to list, of course.

GM : What "conspiracy theory"? I never wrote a "conspiracy theory" about the 1993 police shootings. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to write about it when no one knows what really happened. I simply pointed out the many problems in Premanand and Priddy's conspiracy theories. Consequently, this comment, by Premanand, is totally unfounded. Furthermore, Premanand does not refute any of my disagreements with his speculations about the 1993 police shootings. Click Here to read my article that discusses the many problems with Premanand's wild speculations regarding the incidents that occurred on June 6th 1993.

Reply : MY comments are very well founded. They shows how Gerald Moreno is himself a walking conspiracy theory, and part of this is constantly to assume and insinuate that Sathya Sai Baba is innocent of involvement in the murders and the many alleged sexual abuses etc. Contradictorily, he says it is 'impossible to write about' when 'no one knows what really happened'. He writes plenty about it himself, as if he knew anything. But much of what really happened , if not all is known and much of it is already documented. But GM is trying to wash away the crime again and again!
GM is in fact also part of the widespread Sai movement conspiracy aiming to hide Sathya Sai Baba's actual role in the murders and stop him having to face any judicial process. This is shown also by GM's attacks against the JuST group and on most those who sign the Sai petition calling for investigation further proves beyond all doubt. GM is being exceedingly dishonest. Now, Sathya Sai Baba has not refuted any of my or Priddy's theories. I have already replied very early in July itself to GM's refutation, when Murali Krishna gave me a copy of it. I have also filed my reply with a copy of Gerald Moreno's refutation with the Law Enforcement Department early in July.

GM : Unlike Anti-Sai Activists, I correct any errors I make when it it brought to my attention.

Reply : GM does not prove that he corrects any errors he makes when it is brought to his attention. Even if he gives these, I am unable to believe that when some one points out his mistakes to him he corrects them. I have pointed out many serious mistakes and defamations, but he sticks to them!

GM : Premanand seems to be repeatedly making the case that he did not say Sathya Sai Baba was the "only key witness".

Reply: GM had to write "seems" because he knows he has no real point here! So now he sees that I am not repeatedly making the case that I did not say Sathya Sai Baba was the only witness, but he is repeatedly repeating his view. What I said was that I did not state that in 'Godman or Conman' as I was not the author nor was I quoted verbatim., and it is true and you have confirmed it in your confession. GM struggles to deceive and does not correct his mistakes.

GM : However, I have indisputably shown that Premanand said exactly that (albeit, not in the God-man/Con-man article).

Reply : GM is repeatedly repeating himself. If he were quoting some other material he ought to have stated that.

GM : Premanand said that Sathya Sai Baba was the "only person who was a witness to the murders of mysterious deaths". My comments were based on this background information from the Secret Swami Documentary.

Reply : GM is now repeating his repeated repetitions. His previous article never stated that it was what is taken from the Secret Swami Documentary, on the contrary.

GM : My site actually provides voluminous amounts of information, about alleged sexual abuse victims, that have been purposely suppressed from the general public. Click Here to read my Witnesses Section, that discusses the testimonies of alleged sexual abuse victims.

Reply : I find that GM has not provided even one sound piece of information after investigating the victims except his 'voluminous' assumptions, opinions, denials and constant use of words like 'maybe' and 'appear to', all devoid of true or fact-based information or actual investigatory contact with alleged sexual abuse victims.

GM : Regarding Premanand's "deception", Click Here to view screen captures to, Robert Priddy's Ex-Office Bearers Page and the BBC text to the Secret Swami Documentary. Basava Premanand personally made a submission to (which was subsequently replicated on Robert Priddy's Ex-Office Bearers Page) stating that he was a follower of Sri Sathya Sai Baba from 1968 to 1974 and was the "best worker in the Sathya Sai Baba Org., Podanur". However, in the Secret Swami Documentary, Basava Premanand claimed that he was never a follower and had been trying to investigate Sathya Sai Baba since 1968 itself.

Reply : I have been very much involved in the production of Secret Swami in India. I searched the entire script of the documentary Secret Swami and could not find the words he has stated in his response : The screen capture shows only the following :-
"10.20.34 BP : I have been investigating him since nineteen sixty eight 10.20.38 Tanya Datta : nineteen Sixty eight.
10:20:39 : BP : Sixty eight. Investigating and drawing my conclusions and keeping it as a hobby.
10.20.46 : Tanya Datta : What do you think of him then?"
So this another faking by GM, unless he can point out the exact material.
I got the screen captures to Sai petitions net after "click here ". Who stated that I did not personally make that submission? GM has not asked me if I did make that submission. For his information it is I who made the submission, as follows:
Basava Premanand India signed the petition on September 27, 2004. Period as a follower : 1968 – 1974.
Position in Sathya Sai Baba Org : Best worker in Sathya Sai Baba Org. Podanur. This is also there "I have exposed all the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba and also investigated murders, financial exploitation and sexual abuse of students. Govt of India have to investigate him.

GM : To further the argument Click Here to read an article that was published in the The Independent, on December 24th 2000, where it was claimed that Premanand had "spent nearly 50 years touring Indian villages, drawing crowds of people by demonstrating how "miracles" are performed".

Reply : This is not my statement. This is what Beatrice Newbery wrote. She has mixed two materials together. Did GM show courtesy to enquire with me or Beatrice and the Independent?

GM : When this article was written, Premanand was 71 (he was born in 1930). Consequently, Premanand had been exposing gurus since the age of 21 or 22. This means that in 1968 (at the age of 38, or 16 years after he was a rationalist) Premanand was not a follower of Sathya Sai Baba. Why did Premanand lie

Reply : I have not stated that I was not a follower of Sathya Sai Baba. I took the membership of Sathya Sai Baba’s Samithi in Podanur in 1968 to investigate his miracles I have documents to prove this. Read the 'click here' materials together and find out why I became a follower of Sathya Sai Baba. This is documented in my book 'Divine Octopus and the Health' souvenir published by Geedee Medical Aids long back.
All in all, it is clear that GM is very confused about it all and writes anything and twists anything just because he is in such deep trouble with all his undocumented and imagined facts, except perhaps on some trivial, secondary points.

Or go to main series  part one  part two - part three - part four - part five

(I want to thank my skeptic colleagues for relieving work pressures on me by key board work and editing of my answers)  

NOTE! Unless otherwise stated, every article on these pages is the registered copyright of the author and/or website owner and unauthorised copying will be pursued legally . Permission to be sought in writing via the owner of this website