[Echolima]

Hi, I'm another one drawn here by the resurrection of the Mirror article - an article of which I am proud to say I had a little involvement right from the start

I've been a member of the SNU, sat in development circles, given messages that experienced mediums have declared to be genuine mediumship, and read extensively of the scientific literature written since the Fox sisters.

I felt I had to contribute to the discussion when I read:
"While you are entitled to your opinion, you should not be dismissing the work of such eminent scholars, who put their reputations on the line to investigate mediumship and pronounced it genuine!"

The most important thing to remember about virtually all experiments conducted by these scientists is that they took place in complete darkenss. When you read the actual accounts of these seances with an open mind, it's impossible not to see how exactly the same effects - and greater - are achieved by illusionists.

Sir William Crookes was a great experimenter, but according to the Dictionary of National Biography, while his material discoveries are of lasting and fundamental value, his theoretical speculations have not stood the test of time so well.
Although he approached the subject of spiritualism with a genuinely open mind, and believed that he had been truly objective in his researches, he was as likely as anyone to have been duped by unscrupulous people. Just as today, because something could not, at that time, be explained, does not mean it was inexplicable.
Crookes even ignored the fact that an individual at one of the seances he investigated grabbed hold of the 'manifestation', and declared it was very much flesh and blood. Two friends of the 'medium' forcibly removed the man's hands, but everyone else present seem to have believed that the 'manifestation' just slipped through the man's fingers. Naturally, the 'medium' was still tied in the cabinet when they got round to investigating - but that was five minutes later. Shades of Colin Fry and his trumpet!

Sir Oliver Lodge was persuaded of the afterlife after attending four seances by the 'medium' Eusapia Palladino, in 1894, who was exposed as a fraud the following year. He reacted in just the same way that Acorah's 'bleevers' do today - refused to see what had been proved.
Before he died he declared "If I find myself an opportunity of communicating I shall try to establish my identity by detailing a perfectly preposterous and absurdly childish peculiarity which I have already taken the trouble to record with some care in a sealed document deposited in the custody of the English S.P.R. I hope to remember the details of this document and relate them in no unmistakable fashion. " He died in 1940 and despite many attempts, when it was eventually opened in 1947, none of the psychics had come close to its contents.

Lord Rayleigh is another one who attended seances by Eusapia Palladino, but apparently he never felt sufficiently convinced to declare himself a believer in public. He did not think the evidence for telepathy conclusive, but he declared that, "Given irrefragable evidence, for telepathy between living persons", he would "Have no difficulty in extending it to telepathy from the dead."

Alfred Russel Wallace came to spiritualism after seeing a demonstration of mesmerism in France. He does not appear to have made any significant investigations, besides attending seances.

Sir William Barrett is another who became interested in spiritualism via mesmerism. However, he was a true sceptic, intent on genuine investigation and experiment. He was the guiding light for the foundation of the Society for Psychical Research. When reviewing fifty years of this research, Barrett wrote "Sooner or later psychical research will demonstrate to the educated world, not only the existence of a soul in man, but also the existence of a soul in Nature." In other words, more research was needed.

When Professor de Morgan had a reading from Mrs Hayden he said, "somebody or some spirit was reading my thoughts". Unfortunately, we do not have access to a transcript of the whole sitting, but I suspect that he was a victim of something unknown at that time - cold reading. As we all know, a clever cold reader can convince most people that they are genuine.

Whilst all these gentlemen believed in spiritualism, and wrote extensively about their beliefs, they actually provided no proof of the existence of life after death. In fact, their belief seems remarkably similar to Christians who 'believe in Jesus Christ' with the same lack of proof.

Not one of these scientists have been well-documented as having returned in spirit form and able to identify themselves beyond any shadow of doubt. If any of them could have done, they surely would have done.

[myself]

Why is it that within spiritualism someone found ( or thought to be found) doing one thing that is questioned by one or two people suddenly have everything they have done called fraudulent?
When Maradona did the famous hand ball did that make every goal he scored after that a hand ball? NO, it made that one time wrong.
The instances of fraud you quote seem to me to be of little relevence. These people took years to look into the evidence and found that overall it was proven within their eyes. That does not mean that you have to believe everything ever written, but when you add up all these people looking into spirit contact the accumilation effect comes into practice. And a few instances of so called fraud can not take away from the thousands of pieces of evidential information given that led these people to believe.

I would argue that the only thing that stops spirit contact becoming fact is the lack of repeatable experiments. Repeatable to the last detail. This is not achieved as every medium is different and every spirit is different. Dispite the evidence from the accumilation effect, without repeatable evidence the scientific world are able to turn their backs on all the evidence that has been given.

Joy xxxxxxxxxx

[Nat]

I am all for skepticism, but it should be pointed out ...

... that many instances of physical phenomena have taken place in subdued light and more commonly red light allowing all present to see exactly what is going on.

... I think illusionists would have a hard time replicating recognizable relatives of sitters unknown to them, simulate their voices and have intimate knowledge known only to a sitter

... I am not surprised comments were made about seized materializations feeling like flesh and blood. It goes in line with Sir William Crookes documentation of Katie King (the materialized figure from Florence Cook) and also his comments that Katie felt so much like flesh and blood that he was even able to take a pulse reading.

... Mediums on scales dropped weight in correspondence with the weight taken on an alternate set of scales at the same time of materialized forms. That is not illusory, that is physically measurable.

... Because the trance state requires the blending of the discarnate spirits mind with that of the incarnate mediums, there is always the possibility of interference from the medium. It does not therefore seem unreasonable to me that when a spirit has the thought of say lifting a vase by ectoplasmic leverage, that the mediums mind being blended responds to the thought to lift the vase in a manner natural to the human fashion eg: reaching out to pick it up. I am by no means saying people have not deliberately cheated but there have been excellent physical mediums perform with no hint of interference on numerous occasion, who on others have "cheated" so blatantly that there was virtually no attempt to even hide it. Why would they do it so openly unless just subconsciously responding to the thought of spirit. Perhaps that is a shade of Colin Fry too?

... As for cold readings, ... sure they happen, but I think it is rather easy to tell the difference and only an undiscerning, gullible person would be taken in by one. Not all of us mediums ask questions during readings, ... many give highly definitive evidence that can't be gathered from cold clues, ... can do it literally blindfolded and without verbal response from sitters, ... can come out with names, dates, specific events, specific causes of passing, foreign languages, you name it. You can't guess at that sort of stuff.

Anyway, in my opinion Most Haunted is a ridiculous show, gives people wrong impressions, and makes fools of all genuine mediums. It is not even entertaining, ... it is just awful, ... but then, it seems to me that most paranormal shows are beaten up and sensationalized for entertainment value. I don't mind a good spooky movie that is clearly a fictional movie, but not supposedly investigative shows passing off fiction as serious fact. Give me a nerdy and serious doco any day thanks.

[Air3]

Originally Posted by Sibyl

Horus

What evidence do you have that we come from dust and return to dust. The physical body does but you are making an assumption that that is all we are.

I think before making such sweeping statements you should do some serious investigation of mediumship and Spiritualism then you can point the finger at people like:

? Sir William Crookes, British physicist who discovered thalium and also paved the way for the discovery of the electron and x-rays

? Sir Oliver Lodge, - British physicist who developed a system of wireless communication in 1894 - his work was influential in the development of radio receivers

? Alfred Russel Wallace - British naturalist whose paper on the theory of evolution was read on the same day as Darwin's. and was awarded the order of merit in 1910

? Lord Rayleigh, British physicist who was the co-founder of the gas argon and who was also awarded the order of merit

? Sir William Barrett, a professor of psychics

? Prof Wm James, a psychologist and philosopher

? Prof Hyslop, also a psychologist and philosopher

? Dr Richard Hodgson, a psychologist - and

? Prof de Morgan the gentleman who investigated Mrs Hayden?s mediumship. This lady being acknowledged as the medium who brought Spiritualism to England.

While you are entitled to your opinion, you should not be dismissing the work of such eminent scholars, who put their reputations on the line to investigate mediumship and pronounced it genuine! And.......... the list continues; mediumship is still being investigated by scientists who have managed to remain open minded.

Although this is not directly a mediumship point that I am about to bring into this, it is relevant to the fact that a supposedly "non-existant" paranormal phenomena (such as mediumship) has had credible - and recent - scientific support.

Bierman and Scholte (2002) conducted experiments into precognition (a supposedly "non-existant" phenomena) using a special form of MRI brain scan (fMRI), which measures/detects brain cell activity in areas of the brain that govern perceptions and emotions. They measured emotional responses of 10 participants to the presentation of mixed images - some emotionally stimulating such as violent or erotic - using fMRI. The results showed that the areas of the brain eliciting emotional responses to emotional stimuli reacted 4 seconds BEFORE the image was presented. This reaction was greater when the image was emotionally MORE stimulating. No participants were asked to consciously predict any images.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/...esentiment.pdf

There is emerging scientific evidence for the sceptics, if they look.

Air3

[Echolima]

Air3, the apparent evidence you talk about regarding precognition is very interesting. However, there is an enormous gulf between that and being able to hold a meaningful two-way conversation with the spirit of a dead person.

Why do mediums such as yourself leave it up to people like me (the sceptics who are supposedly so bad) to expose these shows and psychics?

I would rather see all this stuff shut away on some cable channel far up the sky EPG along with the god channel and that nonsense, than on ITV, LivingTV, Zone Reality etc.

I don't always see eye to eye with Jon, but on these points I agree wholeheartedly.

[chp]

Shame that Jon's post was deleted. I agree too - I think that the first place we should read about a fake being exposed is in the Psychic News - not on sceptic sites or in the newspapers. In the early days of Spiritualism I believe that Psychic News did expose a number of fake physical mediums.

This of course also improves the credibility of Spiritualism and shows that we are prepared to keep our house in order.

[JonDonnis]

Originally Posted by chp

Shame that Jon's post was deleted.

Thank god Echolima quoted me.

Did you see anything in my post that deserved deleting Craig? And have you found out which overzealous mod was behind it?

I agree too - I think that the first place we should read about a fake being exposed is in the Psychic News - not on sceptic sites or in the newspapers. In the early days of Spiritualism I believe that Psychic News did expose a number of fake physical mediums.

Yes you are right, the very fact that in 20 odd years only one psychic has been exposed in the Psychic news (Colin Fry acting as Lincoln) tells a big story, and dont get me started on the cover up instigated by George Cranley after that, shifting the interest away from the facts and onto some ridiculous notions regarding the tie wraps

This of course also improves the credibility of Spiritualism and shows that we are prepared to keep our house in order

But once in 20 years is not enough Craig.

Why isnt every paranormal newspaper and magazine out there jumping on Derek Acorah, Tony Stockwell, Tracy Higgs and so on, for their various dodgy activities?

There are thousands of fakes out there Craig, yet in 20 years just 4 have been prosecuted under the FMA, and even then none were given anything more than a paltry fine.

The least we can do is expose these frauds in the media, it wont stop them, but it might openup a few peoples eyes

[Sibyl]

Originally Posted by JonDonnis

Thank god Echolima quoted me.

Did you see anything in my post that deserved deleting Craig? And have you found out which overzealous mod was behind it?

I am at a loss as to understand how Craig can decide whether a post deserved deleting when it has been deleted. Perhaps he will have to use his psychic abilities!

Can you please advise what you would like Craig to do to the overzealous mod (we were all idiots in one post - now we are just over-zealous) cos Craig does know the name of every one of us who at one time or another have deleted one of your posts. And may I say this Jon, we will continue to delete offensive, aggressive, or just plain silly posts; thats what Moderators do.

[JonDonnis]

Originally Posted by Sibyl

I am at a loss as to understand how Craig can decide whether a post deserved deleting when it has been deleted. Perhaps he will have to use his psychic abilities!

Because echolima quoted me, and you forgot to delete that! lol
Its not hard to work out is it.

Can you please advise what you would like Craig to do to the overzealous mod (we were all idiots in one post - now we are just over-zealous) cos Craig does know the name of every one of us who at one time or another have deleted one of your posts.

Well since the overzeaous mod obvious abused their powers and deleted 100% of my posts regardless of content, i would suggest Craid remove their moderation powers, but of course that is up to him.

And may I say this Jon, we will continue to delete offensive, aggressive, or just plain silly posts; thats what Moderators do.

Yes, that is what moderators are SUPPOSED to do.
Unfortunately somemods onhere decided to take their own predujices into account and blindly delete all of my posts.
Luckily Craig is a fair man, someone i have known for a while, and i knew he would not stand for it.

He encourages sceptical debate.
Maybe some of teh mods on hereshould listen to what craig actually says.

For the record EVERY post i make is recorded and if deleted will be sent to Craig, so be careful with that trigger finger, it may come back and shoot youin the ***

[Nat]

Well obviously you know Craig better than I, but I would think continually citing your association with him to threaten others (whom I might add probably know him better than yourself in some cases) might come back and bite you on the ***. I know I certainly would not appreciate someone using my name to try to excuse their aggressive demeanor.

BTW, multiple mods removed your postings, ... I guess each found something offensive in different ones. Should Craig sack a number of his volunteer staff coz their decisions are not to your liking? I generally quite enjoy the skeptics sharing their thoughts, but in your case perhaps you could try making your points without name dropping in a threatening manner and stating your opinions as your opinion rather than fact,- you might actually get some constructive and interesting debate going on if you went about it in an appropriate and respectful manner.