You've missed the point completely. You also don't appear to have read the thread properly, or to be willing to discuss the subject in a non-defensive, other-than-"believer" kind of headspace.

Once more, just for you:

Nobody is suggesting that the book was written on April 1-3.

There.

You seem to want all the evidence to converge upon a previously-decided conclusion, but I'm afraid that's not how historical research makes its findings. It makes them by looking at the evidence.

The evidence we have is:

Various things written by Crowley, by far the most common being April 8, 9, 10; one instance of 7th, one instance of "it must have been the first of April"" which can be read two ways.

Then we have boat tickets which suggest he wasn't in Cairo on April 8,9,10 of 1904.

Then we have the watermark of the paper of the manuscript being (proof of this to appear possibly to appear at some stage before the Yuga ends) first made by Pirie & Sons (not "Pipie" as Breeze states in the Brick) in 1906, making it impossible to have been used in 1904.

Then we have the backing of the manuscript in linen (by Crowley, presumably, much later), making non-modern examination of the watermark (the traditional method is to hold it up to a light) tricky at best, possibly intentionally so. Possibly not, but possibly so.

Then we have the vague gap between 1904 and when he "discovered" it again, after 1906.

Then we have the frankly odd situation with the typescript (Warburg OS B3) being listed as "missing".

So you see, there is more than mere faith in a pre-judged conclusion dictated by a published narrative required to establish the validity or doubt of historical events and their congruency therewith.

There is evidence - and if it doesn't all point to a single conclusion in view right now, so much the better, it means the answer, or answers, lie ahead, and is maybe to be different from one which we'd been expecting.

Just as you are not at all ignorant of the historical method I have not missed the point at all 😉

That being said: I am not aware of any proof that the watermark indicates 1906 beyond the assertion on April 1st by a member of this forum. Until evidence is forthcoming this extraordinary claim ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

Similarly I am also not aware of any proof of the manifest (not tickets) proving Crowley left Cairo earlier, despite my associate David R. Jones (who I told that he should go ahead and publish his evidence, when he originally asked me for advice on whether or not he should go public with this in nearly a decade ago). Despite David's promises for nearly a decade now, this remains backed up purely by his own assertion and no evidence.

In fact I believe that what little investigation that was done into David's claims by Ian Rons showed his tale to be erroneous.

Ah yes, the passenger list, not tickets, my mistake. Ok, correct my previous post to say "passenger list", not "tickets", then.

I heard about it from someone else (not David Jones, that's a department store where I live) in the mid or late nineties, actually. I'd forgotten about it and I think Ian dismissed it here as you say but then a previous poster in this thread posted this link http://www.astronargon.us/Holy%20Conundrum!.html which refers to it as well which reminded me of it again, although I only skimmed it quickly and that was last week so my apologies for saying "tickets" when the ship's passenger list is the actual record involved.

All will be revealed in due course, I'm sure.

Why Breeze would alter the text of both Crowley's editions (1936, 1937) of the Equinox Of The Gods to omit the letters

f i r s t

and silently replace it with " 7th " (short, numeric form)

when Crowley left it as "f-i-r-s-t" in his first-ever AND his second edition, and did not print it on the errata slip - something easily done, and "the first of April" occurring at the beginning of the paragraph very easily spotted and being a "phrase-date" of symbolic significance in its own right? It's not likely to have been missed. It's not likely to be a "typo". Just because you can't explain his intention (or don't "get" it) says less about it than the evidence - i.e. what he chose to allow into print, TWICE - says.

93,

Underwhelmed? Laughable.

S is P. Until it is proven that S is NOT P, then S is P. Whether it is an assumed truth, or a placeholder, or an actual truth, is for little debunkers to figure out, sure. But until they prove S is not P then S is P.

It doesn't matter what the source is, as you seem to have put Crowley in the same basket of people with Biblical writers and Fox News... what kind of crack are you smoking anyway?

The "scientific and generally accepted theory" is that the reception occurred on April 8,9, and 10. You have a hypothesis that it wasn't. Until your hypothesis becomes the new theory in this case, the initial theory still stands: the reception occurred on April 8, 9, and 10.

You have been provided with ample demonstrations of this from many angles, and you have not once to provide a strong counter argument, or even some decent evidence to the contrary.

Occam's Razor, for example: People wanted to see Peesident Obama's birth certificate. He gave them something to hold them over. They kept on, but there was absolutely nothing they could do about his Presidency, because until it was proven that he wasn't a natural born citizen, the nation has to "accept" that he is, whether they like it or not. He finally did release his full birth certificate, which proves he's a natural born citizen. So all of the "birthers" can now go back to accepting what they have been accepting anyway, only this time they will do it without a struggle.

By the way, the whole "Crowley said this, so it must be so", argument is trash. Patriarch156 put out ample information from other sources, but you are still "underwhelmed".

What are you really saying? "I don't care what evidence or proof you all come up with to show that the reception was on April 8-10, because I'm still going to try and prove that it wasn't, and I won't accept the April 8-10 dates until I prove those aren't the true dates." Is that it?

What is this? I assume it was meant for P156, but after reading his post twice I don't see where it fits?

It's not "Faithful dismission". It's the acceptance of the given facts until they are proven otherwise. Point being: Crowley said the reception occurred on April 8-10. There is a large body of evidence supporting this claim. There is also a body of evidence which people are twisting in order to say it wasn't April 8-10. Until they prove Crowley wrong, it's April 8-10. If they prove Crowley wrong the dates will change, and then you will see where the "Faith" is, by noting those who refuse to change.

How on earth can you still say it is an anomaly? It's been explained to you many times by some of the better Crowley scholars on this planet. It has been laid out logically several times. You want it to be an anomaly, but it isn't.

It just not very specific grammar. He was going from a very vague memory about an event to which at the time he assigned little to no import. He could have put all of the bells and whistles you are looking for in there, but if he wasn't quite sure, why would he belabor the cause?

And you are also assuming that every other thing Crowley wrote has superb grammar. Crowley wrote some great stuff. He also wrote some average stuff. He also wrote some total crap.

Unless it wasn't an error, and someone who fails to understand the meaning of the words, like yourself, is only purporting it to be an error in order to fulfill your own agenda.

Noc, I know you are out to try and make some "impact" on the Thelema society. You obviously want "Everything to be in the light", and not without your own little personal touch or say so. Interesting enough, everything already is in the light, if you turn the light on and look, but it just won't have your little personal stamp on it. It's not supposed to. Note, this is an opinion. It can be proven true or not true, with no odds. What Crowley stated, he stated as a historical fact, however weak the grammar may be. It is accepted as a fact until it is proven not to be. You have only contributed an attempt to "blur the lines". You haven't proven anything. I personally do not think you, or anyone else will prove the contrary.

By your logic, and your weak grammar, I deduce that you have not done academic teaching. For there is no university simply named "university". Since you didn't go back and correct this, or even if you did, we could, using your logic, continually say you did not teach at "university" until it is proven otherwise. In your case, you can prove that it was a typo, and that you have taught at "a university", to which we would go "okay, that makes more sense". In Crowley's case, you won't be able to prove that what he said is not true, using the current evidence you have provided.

Remind me not to attend any of your courses, if this is the logic you are teaching your students with.

93 93/93

Who's to say Breeze wasn't off his rocker? You could try writing to him, or Mr. Heidrick, and seeing if you can get some answer. There may be an answer elsewhere for this. You need all the help you can get.

I wish you luck.

An outstanding contribution, Azidonis, well done.

Passive aggressive doesn't suit you, yet. Try harder.

Bravo.

Back to the topic...

This is a real yawn fest.

I must have missed something during the course of the discussion; who is in possession of the boat tickets you refer to? I'm aware of the ever-absent, seemingly imaginary passenger list that purportedly shows Crowley left Cairo before April 8th, but so far it's only a rumor.

Then we have the watermark of the paper of the manuscript being (proof of this to appear possibly to appear at some stage before the Yuga ends) first made by Pirie & Sons (not "Pipie" as Breeze states in the Brick) in 1906, making it impossible to have been used in 1904.

More hearsay, generated by R.T. Cole, who after injecting the idea into the discussion, has been notably absent, reducing him to the status of agitator at best.

Then we have the backing of the manuscript in linen (by Crowley, presumably, much later), making non-modern examination of the watermark (the traditional method is to hold it up to a light) tricky at best, possibly intentionally so. Possibly not, but possibly so.

Having examined enhanced scans of all the Liber L pages, it is evident the complete watermark can be discerned; there is no date provided, nor would I expect there to be one given the descriptions of watermarks used by the same company that include a date.

Then we have the vague gap between 1904 and when he "discovered" it again, after 1906.

When you say vague, I assume you mean a lack of journal entries. According to Crowley he spent the time thumbing his nose at the Secret Chiefs whilst drinking ale and playing billiards.

Then we have the frankly odd situation with the typescript (Warburg OS B3) being listed as "missing".

Stand alone, it suggests nothing at all other than the document is missing, which could be the result of thievery unrelated to the topic, or a clerical error.

There is evidence - and if it doesn't all point to a single conclusion in view right now, so much the better, it means the answer, or answers, lie ahead, and is maybe to be different from one which we'd been expecting.

I have seen no genuine evidence to date to support your contentions; the only thing offered so far is conjecture and hearsay. I suspect that any tangible evidence that might surface supporting the Cairo Conspiracy Theory will be anecdotal at best, and deemed irrelevant in light of evidence to the contrary that will also be released in the future.

As has already been said, we're all yet to see evidence (as opposed to a published narrative by Crowley who says he forgot about the document in question for two years) that the dates "April 8, 9, 10, of the year 1904" are historically accurate too.

X comes back with "what proof do you want? Crowley says it, that's enough, if you don't buy that, you won't buy anything so what's the point of discussion?".

Y replies "Well, you're the one asserting that it WAS April 8,9,10 of 1904, so I want proof of this of the same kind that you demand from me - and all I need to provide is basis for doubt, not proof, as I'm not concluding anything, I'm simply questioning the historical accuracy of the published narrative".

Doubt exists for the reasons I've mentioned. You dismiss these as just rumour and hearsay. Viewed objectively, Crowley's published narrative is also little better than rumour and hearsay (it's just in print) until established beyond question by factors external to the "produced" account, and all vagaries, anomalies, doubts and incongruencies eliminated - not simply ignored.

I say that it's an open question until the various issues have been investigated and a formal presentation made which dispels the myths - on whatever side.

By the way, I'm not on any "side" in the debate, except the side that would like to establish facts rather than simply parrot what Crowley said 90% (but not 100%) of the time as though he was a simple and infallible being when he was clearly anything but either of those qualities.

What does seem beyond doubt to me is that there is a tendency for certain quarters to preserve a previously-accepted belief based on precisely zero evidence and precisely zero critical thinking, simply because it's an account that Crowley published, most of the time, but not all of the time, in some of his books.

Fixed it for you.