[Andrea]

Originally Posted by Sibyl

Tangible evidence has been given by mediums for years, and that given by physical mediums is incredible but you can only take the horse to water, you cannot make him drink. It is also an unfortunate fact that the bad mediums get the best publicity because of the entertainment tag.

I have been visiting Leslie Price's site where he states quite categorically that he accepts the fact that Helen Duncan had an extra stomach and was able to regurgitate 8 yards of cheesecloth which is fine, perhaps she could, and perhaps she did. I choose not to believe that because I cannot work out how anyone in the seance room were able to make this gooey wet mass of regurgitated cheesecloth dry out, stand up, take on the face, form and all the features of a person recognised by someone in the room and then speak - some blooming cheesecloth! Wonder if I can get some on ebay!

luv
vi

Hi Vi

I have not read anything on Leslie Price, and there was me thinking I had read up about most physical mediums. As for Helen Duncan's regurgitating cheese cloth it sounds disgusting!

I read Helen Duncan's book a couple of years ago, and the photos in the in my opinion are not authentic, they are just pictures of Helen pulling cheese cloth out of her mouth. If physical mediumship is real, then why have some of todays incidences been reported as fakes i.e. Colin's trumpet incident, and why are there fewer mediums practicing physical mediumship that produces ectoplasm (not including trance in this).

I have seen some very funny trance demonstrations by mediums, and none that led me to believe it was nothing more than the mediums wild imagination coming through with a high pitched voice, or complete accent change, and why is it that they are always done in the dark, usually with a red light shining at the mediums face - & what is all this cabinet business about. :shock:

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by Nat

When you are there, and see it in person, as I know both myself and Vi have, (amongst numerous others) questioning tangibility does not exactly apply, ..the phenomena is touchable, it is solid, it is material, it is physical, - and it is incredibly, breath takingly, awesome. It is tangible!

If there are mediums working like this out there, then why do they shy away from people who question their claims, and not offer to work with them, is this not a common objective - the proof of life after death.

When one of these figure is known to yourself, you know if you're a fraud or not, no others opinions are required. I wish everyone could have this type of evidence.

In some trance demos I have seen it could be mistaken that faces were overshadowing the medium, but with a red light shining on the mediums face and the fact that they are sat in a cabinet, really makes one wonder why all this is necessary, if it was real, then why would the overshadowing not just happen in day light too.

I am going to look on ebay for some magical regurgitating cheesecloth tho, - rofl in hysterics yet again xxx My man sometimes calls me a cow ...rofl - whaddya rekon, could I stuff some in one of my extra stomach's and pull off such a stunt ???

Nat :lol:

Sounds a bit painful! :lol:

[Echolima]

I was going to reply, then discovered that Andrea had covered everything I wanted to say, so I'll just say "What she said!" .

Anyway, hasn't this thread moved far from the original question??

Emma

[Nat]

Originally Posted by Andrea

If there are mediums working like this out there, then why do they shy away from people who question their claims, and not offer to work with them, is this not a common objective - the proof of life after death.

Why does anyone shy away from being the center of controversy in any regard? What needs to be remembered is that these mediums are people with feelings and lives beyond mediumship. They may just want to quietly go about their 9-5 lives without their extra curricular activities featuring in it. It also takes a very strong sense of self to have constant criticism and accusations bounce off you without it eventually leaving a mark of some sort. I imagine this is why many such mediums prefer to share their ability in an environment where they are supported, ... if not just coz it is simply not their remit to prove themselves to the world when they can quietly touch people a handful at a time. How any mediums goes about giving survival evidence is not really up to the rest of us to decide.

You will know tho, having read about Helen Duncan, that she offered to display her abilities before the courts and was denied the opportunity to do so. You will also know that the treatment she received turned her away from using her abilities for many years. If this is the manner such mediums can be treated in, ridiculed, accused of fraud, placed in physical danger, imprisoned, and all without opportunity to prove herself in the best way possible, it is little wonder others prefer to just keep out of the lime light. I would love someone to go through rigorous screening, get on live tv, and spit out an ecto person, ... However, I would not point a finger at who that person should be, so the way I see it, it is better to be going on even if behind closed doors than not at all coz it still touches people and has the capacity to change lives and it would be pretty sad to take that away from people.

I think you are forgetting too, that even those scientists who are prepared to attest to such phenomena being fact, do so at the risk of ridicule from the peers (who have more than likely not looked in to it themselves mind you) and being ostracized within their field of work, so they are few and far between. So you see, ... the problem is on both sides of the fence.

In some trance demos I have seen it could be mistaken that faces were overshadowing the medium, but with a red light shining on the mediums face and the fact that they are sat in a cabinet, really makes one wonder why all this is necessary, if it was real, then why would the overshadowing not just happen in day light too.

All the things you described can and do happen, which is why discerning observers require the more definitive phenomena that does occur and is consequentially more evidential, to rule out all of the things you have said as being possibly what is going on. I would question anything of the standard you have described too, ... but obviously I have seen standards beyond that.

The reason it is said that red lighting is commonly utilized is because ectoplasm is sensitive to light and as red light has the slowest and longest wave length spectrum, it is easier for spirit to work with it's rate of vibrational frequency. I am sure Vi will correct me if I have not explained that quite right.

The cabinet is something I wonder about the necessity of myself coz I for one have been able to draw greater volumes of energy in an open room than I have in a cabinet, when that is supposed to be it's purpose - to concentrate the energy level within a limited space so it can be better utilized by spirit to entrance the medium, draw ectoplasm or whatever they are up to at the time. That said, I am the only person in my class who can sit in a cabinet and say "I don't get what your all on about". However, since the general consensus puts me in the minority, then there quite possibly is a place and purpose in them accelerating trance conditions and making spirits job easier.

Getting back to Craigs comment - yes it is ironic that human testimony can be used to establish evidence in court but not accepted as evidence of an after life.

Nat

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by Nat

Why does anyone shy away from being the center of controversy in any regard?

That ultimately depends on the individual, and psychic and mediumship practices are controversial due to the way they are carried out and also by the claims made by those working in this field, but would it not be a historical landmark if there was a medium that could prove the existence of life after death. It would certainly be the end of a lot of head scratching and criticism towards mediumship.

What needs to be remembered is that these mediums are people with feelings and lives beyond mediumship. They may just want to quietly go about their 9-5 lives without their extra curricular activities featuring in it.

Some mediums are caring and lead an ordinary 9 - 5 life, but what about the people?s feelings that they pass on their messages to - what if mediums are wrong, where does that leave the thousands of people who genuinely believed in the messages they received. If someone?s relative was communicating with them via a medium, why would they need to do this via a psychic telephone reading speaking to a total stranger, or a medium on platform at a spiritualist church.

It also takes a very strong sense of self to have constant criticism and accusations bounce off you without it eventually leaving a mark of some sort. I imagine this is why many such mediums prefer to share their ability in an environment where they are supported, ... if not just coz it is simply not their remit to prove themselves to the world when they can quietly touch people a handful at a time.

We are at a time where mediumship and psychic readings is probably at its most popular ever, more people are aware of these practices and are interested in it. What I fail to understand is that why not one person would be willing to stand up for what they believe to be so true. In my opinion they do not have the courage for fear of being wrong, and because they ultimately cannot prove the abilities they claim they have.

How any mediums goes about giving survival evidence is not really up to the rest of us to decide.

But it is when so many people are involved in working as psychics and mediums and many members of the public are affected by this.

You will know tho, having read about Helen Duncan, that she offered to display her abilities before the courts and was denied the opportunity to do so. You will also know that the treatment she received turned her away from using her abilities for many years. If this is the manner such mediums can be treated in, ridiculed, accused of fraud, placed in physical danger, imprisoned, and all without opportunity to prove herself in the best way possible, it is little wonder others prefer to just keep out of the lime light.

Yes but we are not now in the 1940s, I can comprehend mediumship taking place behind close doors prior to 1951, but today people seem to be jumping at the slightest chance of media attention when it comes to their psychic and mediumistic claims, and yet they are all still classed as entertainers.

I would love someone to go through rigorous screening, get on live tv, and spit out an ecto person

That would be rather amusing to see! :lol:

However, I would not point a finger at who that person should be, so the way I see it, it is better to be going on even if behind closed doors than not at all coz it still touches people and has the capacity to change lives and it would be pretty sad to take that away from people.

Some people may find comfort in consulting a medium or psychic and feel that it does help them to move on, but on the contrary there are those that are left afraid, defrauded, emotionally confused and very addicted to these types of services and live their life through readings, not to mention the financial debts that some people acquire due to the exorbitant prices that are being charged.

I think you are forgetting too, that even those scientists who are prepared to attest to such phenomena being fact, do so at the risk of ridicule from the peers (who have more than likely not looked in to it themselves mind you) and being ostracized within their field of work, so they are few and far between. So you see, ... the problem is on both sides of the fence.

All it would take is one scientist and one medium. If a medium could produce such phenomena as ectoplasm, I am sure that the scientists would be queuing to work with that medium. Unfortunately there have been so many silly claimants over time, that it is probably truer that the scientists prefer to spend their time working on more important issues, and not just another claimant who claims they can move objects by some unknown force.

All the things you described can and do happen, which is why discerning observers require the more definitive phenomena that does occur and is consequentially more evidential, to rule out all of the things you have said as being possibly what is going on. I would question anything of the standard you have described too, ... but obviously I have seen standards beyond that.

I would not class myself as a "discerning observer", I am just looking for the truth, and that is do mediums really communicate with spirits. I am a rational thinker and analytical by nature, and have attended some very small trance demonstrations held by some very famous mediums and others not so well known with a very open attitude to the outcome.

I sat at the SAGB a few years ago where the medium conducting my reading asked me if it would be ok if he went into trance, as he claimed to have my grandfather with him. I had no objections so he continued, but all he did was change the tone of his voice and do something with his throat which made him look like he had swallowed a fish bone. I then sat there very quietly for the remainder of the reading or else I would have roared out laughing. Consequently the reading was a joke.

The reason it is said that red lighting is commonly utilized is because ectoplasm is sensitive to light and as red light has the slowest and longest wave length spectrum, it is easier for spirit to work with it's rate of vibrational frequency. I am sure Vi will correct me if I have not explained that quite right.

Again we have no way of proving that spirit work on a faster vibration level than us so that is why I question the use of the red light. If this were the case that they communicated on a faster vibration level, why are they not able to slow that down in order for the mediums to give much clearer information and why is it up to the medium to work on a faster vibration, which in essence is why mediumship is so poor. There may be mediums that get the odd first name or even surname, but there is not one that can get a first name and surname together at least 10% of the time, and this I have learnt from watching and also studying mediumship with some mediums who are labelled to be the most evidential ever.

The cabinet is something I wonder about the necessity of myself coz I for one have been able to draw greater volumes of energy in an open room than I have in a cabinet, when that is supposed to be it's purpose - to concentrate the energy level within a limited space so it can be better utilized by spirit to entrance the medium, draw ectoplasm or whatever they are up to at the time. That said, I am the only person in my class who can sit in a cabinet and say "I don't get what your all on about". However, since the general consensus puts me in the minority, then there quite possibly is a place and purpose in them accelerating trance conditions and making spirits job easier.

If spirit did really want to communicate via the medium in a trance state, I fail to see why the only way they would be able to achieve this is if someone was sat in a cabinet. I agree with you on this one I certainly do not understand it, just think people look rather odd sitting in a blacked out cabinet.

Getting back to Craigs comment - yes it is ironic that human testimony can be used to establish evidence in court but not accepted as evidence of an after life.

I think this has gone a bit off topic!

[Nat]

You know, 1/2 way through reading your response I decided I was not going to rebut your individual points coz we could back and forth here indefinitely putting up the case for either side and neither of us are going to be convinced of the others reasoning and that is simply because I have seen sufficient evidence to convince me and you have not. I think half the time tho, those who go out of their way to debunk mediumship are also those who most want it to be true, so whilst we all have to find our own satisfactory level of evidence, I hope you find yours. And yeah, this is way off topic, ...hence my token backtrack in my last post ... lol. :lol:

Take Care xx

[abbondanzieri]

yes it is ironic that human testimony can be used to establish evidence in court but not accepted as evidence of an after life.

no, the ironic thing is that i've waded through a well known "proof" of the afterlife for page after page after page and all it is is human testimony (he said/she said stuff), no science at all. i wanted to find evidence, but all i read was anecdote after anecdote, and what the skeptics call "argument from authority".

that's a good few hours of my life i won't be getting back.

[AMP]

Hi abbond,

If you want a scientific approach why not try reading the Lynn McTaggart books ( The Field and The Intention Experiments). It relates things to quantum physics and shows quite a few experiments that, in my opinion, prove things beyond doubt.

AMP xxxx

[abbondanzieri]

hi A,

thanks for the reference. i'll have a look for those in the library.