This topic is one I have not seen posted here before.  It gets right to the heart of the issue of verifications of after death communications (ADCs).  I find the case of the notorious medium Arthur Ford to be an excellent example of the pitfalls we get into when searching for absolute proof in the physical world of ADCs.

I am going to post two different view points of Ford's ADC/hoax conveyed to Mrs. Houdini after Harry's death, but first, a little background on the characters is due.  Harry Houdini was an illusionist and performer beyond compare.  Yet one of his side passions was debunking the rising spiritualist movement that was sweeping the world.  Seances and belief in ADCs from the likes of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, led Houdini to investigate many seances and mediums and debunk the frauds that were found.

Yet, Houdini, according to his biographers wanted to believe in an afterlife, if only good verification could be obtained.  He often awoke at night and called out for his deceased mother, asking her to communicate if at all possible.  At some point, through conversation, Houdini's wife apparently conveyed to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that any true message given to her or Harry from his mother would have to include the idea of forgiveness.  

Houdini made an elaborate code, which was used during his performances, where seemingly innocent phrases would be used from his wife in the audience, to alert him of information she had gleaned, but that he should not know.  This code was published after Houdini's death and would have been available to some inquiring minds.  Houdini set certain parameters with his wife to assure that she would not be duped by fraudulent mediums.  

Ford, a famous medium, gave Bess a message from Houdini's mother that was, essentially the word "forgive."  Bess said this was the one word that Houdini would have yearned to hear from his mother (however Harry had died two years before this message from his mother was transmitted).  As you will see in the two articles that I will attach, there was some evidence that Conan Doyle, a close friend of Ford's could have inadvertently passed on this information, or that a newspaper article mentioned the word forgive months before Ford transmitted the message.  Nevertheless, Houdini's wife was moved when she heard of it.

At Bess Houdini's request, Ford did a seance/reading three years after Houdini's death at her home.  He went into a trance and immediately used a nine word code that could spell out letters or give numbers.  He spelled out "Rosabelle," the secret song that Bess was singing when she met Harry (her ring was engraved with this song), and "believe."  Bess had fallen and been ill just prior to this reading.  She was so moved by the words, she signed a note  authenticating Ford's message as an authentic ADC from Harry.  

However, there was evidence that the Houdini code was published in a book one year prior to Ford's reading, and that interviews published with Mrs. Houdini discussed "believe," and "Rosabelle."  If Ford was indeed a fraud, all the information was out there.  Subsequently, there was much ugliness, with people coming out and swearing that Ford admitted to the whole thing being an elaborate hoax.  Mrs. Houdini withdrew her support of his ADC.

I am going to present the evidence first from the skeptics, then from the spiritualists - see what you think!  My point is that even in a case as precise as this supposed ADC, so many opinions and charges flew back and forth that it appeared go muddy the waters beyond seeing the truth.  This ties in with my thread on the New Age Wackadoodles vs. the evidence based rationalists.  Sometimes, despite being given verifications, we are left to ponder the imponderable.

Matthew

First Spin on Ford's ADC:  The skeptics report (From the Skeptics dictionary)

Arthur Ford hoax

Arthur Ford (1896-1971) was a 20th-century clairaudient who set the stage for Sylvia Browne, James van Praagh, John Edward, Allison DuBois and the coven of other meretricious mediums currently making a mint from the bereaved and the gullible. Ford was founder of the First Spiritualist Church of New York (Williams 2000: 117). In 1929, he claimed to have broken a secret code that magician and escape artist Harry Houdini and his wife had devised to test the afterlife hypothesis. The code was the same one they had used when they'd performed together in a mentalist routine and was common among vaudeville performers.

Houdini died on Halloween in 1926. His wife Beatrice (Bess) offered $10,000 to anyone who could produce an authentic message from the spirit of her husband. Every Halloween for the next ten years she held a séance, hoping in vain for Houdini's spirit to turn up.*  Fletcher, the reverend Ford's "spirit guide," claimed to get the message 'forgive', not from Houdini but from Houdini's mother, on February 8, 1928. Bess wrote Ford that her husband had "awaited in vain all his life" for that word from his mother (Christopher 1975: 126). However, Ford's message need not have come from the spirit world since Bess had told a reporter for the Brooklyn Eagle in 1927 that Houdini had longed to hear from his mother and that any authentic communication would include the word 'forgive' (Christopher: 126).

In January 1929, Ford crony Francis Fast claimed that he brought word to Mrs. Houdini that Ford was ready to crack the secret code. She was not in the best of health, however. She had fallen down a flight of stairs a week earlier and was also battling influenza (Christopher: 127). A reporter, Rea Jaure of the New York Evening Graphic, described Mrs. Houdini as in a "semidelerium" from her illness and medications. Even so, she allowed a séance with Ford in her home on January 8th.  At that sitting, Fletcher claimed to have a message from Houdini: "Rosabelle, answer, tell, pray, answer, look, tell, answer, answer, tell." Fletcher explained that the decoded meaning was 'believe.' Bess verified the decoding before witnesses. Ford's Fletcher, still claiming to be speaking for Houdini, went on to repudiate Houdini's crusade to expose fraudulent mediums. Houdini's work apparently now done, he disappeared into the mist, never to be Fletcherized again. (Ford would not use Houdini again, but other mediums would invoke his spirit when it suited their needs.)

Bess Houdini publicly avowed that only she and Houdini knew the code. Yet, the code had been published the previous year by Harold Kellock in his Houdini, His Life-Story (Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1928). In any case, Ford and his cronies got Mrs. Houdini to sign a document "not in her own hand" stating that Ford got the message right (Christopher: 129). Her lawyer, B. M. L. Ernst wrote: "As to the alleged Ford message ... when Mrs. Houdini signed the paper to the effect that the message was genuine, she was confined to bed after a fall, had been taking drugs and was not in a position to know what she was doing" (Christopher: 130).

On January 9th, the day after the séance, Mrs. Houdini was quoted in the New York World as saying:

I had no idea what combination of words Harry would use, and when he said 'believe,' it was a surprise.

She said she expected to get a ten-word message from Houdini but that she didn't know what the message would be (Christopher: 130).

On January 10th, Edward Churchill of the New York Evening Graphic declared the Ford séance a monumental hoax and wrote that Ford had admitted that he got the secret code from Mrs. Houdini. Rea Jaure, who wrote the original article about the séance, invited Ford to her apartment the next evening where she confronted him with the claim that she had a copy of a letter Ford's cronies had brought to Mrs. Houdini two days before the sitting and that it listed the ten words he had claimed the spirit gave Fletcher. Jaure, Churchill, and William Plummer signed sworn statements that Ford offered her money to "play ball" and admitted that he couldn't get the code from spirits. Churchill and Plummer, the managing editor of the Graphic, were in another room of Jaure's apartment where they could overhear the conversation.

Ford, however, issued a public denial, saying he never went to Jaure's apartment and that the story was a "blackmail attempt" to get Mrs. Houdini to cough up some letters from Charles Chapin, a former editor of the New York World who was serving a life sentence in Sing Sing for murdering his wife. Bess Houdini also wrote a letter, published in the Graphic, stating that she did not give Ford the code.

In the April 1929 issue of Science and Invention, Jaure's copy of the letter that Ford's cronies had brought to Mrs. Houdini was published, along with a diagram of Jaure's apartment showing where Churchill and Plummer had been concealed. Ford didn't pursue the matter any further and he didn't collect the $10,000.

Bess Houdini, on the other hand, "disavowed the Ford message countless times before she died in 1943," attributing her association with Ford to her "sick brain."

There was a time when I wanted intensely to hear from Harry. I was ill, both physically and mentally, and such was my eagerness that spiritualists were able to prey upon my mind and make me believe that they had really heard from him. (Christopher: 134)

Ford's literary executor, Canon William V. Rauscher, and his biographer, Allen Spraggett, found conclusive evidence that the Houdini séance had been faked (Williams 2000: 118).

As a result of his "monumental hoax," Ford became the most famous medium in America. He became the darling of spiritualist retreats like Camp Chesterfield and Lily Dale. He duped many people, including Upton Sinclair, Bishop James A. Pike, and Ruth Montgomery. He was known for his extensive files containing information about potential clients. He'd begin his research with Who's Who and once he identified the school or college of a prospective client, "it was easy to get convincing information from yearbooks and similar publications" (Christopher: 144). Thus, he was able to convince many people that he knew things about them that he shouldn't have known. His clients, many of whom were desperate to make contact with a deceased loved one, were often not very critical and were too willing to accept Ford's claim that his information came from the spirit world. Ford may have been the hardest working medium in the business, but today's psychic media stars have shown that diligent research is unnecessary to dupe the modern spiritualist.

Ford's use of Fletcher the spirit guide to retrieve messages from the dead and his serious research into his client's backgrounds may seem to represent an evolutionary advancement over his predecessors, who had to rely on dark rooms, floating trumpets, and cheesecloth dripping from various orifices (ectoplasm) in order to prove to their clients that the spirits were stirring. Today's clairaudients may seem to have evolved even further, as they have dispensed with the intermediary between themselves and the gazillion spirits of the dead. They have also found that there is little need to know much about most clients in order to provide a satisfying reading. One could say, however, that Fletcher's clients were less critical than earlier generations of spiritualists, who demanded tangible, empirical signs that the spirits were present. It appears that the decline in critical thinking about these matters has accelerated to the point where all one has to do now to be a successful medium is throw out a token like 'trumpet,' 'hourglass,' 'Michael,' 'broken appliance,' or 'Miss Piggy' to evoke floods of tears or cataleptic bliss in some bereaved customer. Hot readings are unnecessary when clients are eager to please the medium and anxious to succeed in making contact. Throw out a token and watch the wondrous process of subjective validation take the client to another world. If even that task is too arduous, become a pet psychic. You can say anything and rationalize away any apparent errors without fear that some day you will be exposed as a fraud by your literary executor.

Spiritualists Deny that Ford's ADC was a hoax:   From http://www.ial.goldthread.com/houdini.html


THE RETURN OF HOUDINI
& The Debunking Network

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is frequently stated in mainstream literature that Houdini never did return in spirit. However, there is evidence that suggests otherwise. According to Joseph Rinn, and others since, Beatrice Houdini offered a reward of $10,000 to any medium able to prove, to her satisfaction, the survival of her husband in the spirit world. I cannot fathom why, because mediums do not charge a great deal for their services, and most do not charge anything. Although Joseph Rinn was obsessed with high-profile monetary challenges, Houdini was completely against them, his view being, quite correctly, that they served no purpose whatsoever in psychical research, which makes one wonder why his widow would indulge in such foolishness. The answer has to be that she was ‘advised’ to do so by a ‘friend.’

There was one event that transpired three years after Houdini’s death in January of 1929, that plainly demonstrates the destructive nature of the debunking network.

Beatrice Houdini had been feeling unwell when she fell and cut her head, and so had taken to bed to recover. During this time, according to some accounts, the Reverend Arthur Ford, the minister of the First Spiritualist Church in New York City, happened to call on Mrs. Houdini. In fact it was she who requested his presence. The previous year, on 8 February, 1928, Houdini’s mother made contact with Arthur Ford while he was in a trance state. She passed to him the word ‘forgive,’ adding, that Bess, and Bess alone would understand. She did. This was the very word that Houdini longed to hear his mother say to him. Sceptics, clutching at straws, cited everything and anything from a newspaper article that supposedly revealed one of the words, to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who had met Arthur Ford when Ford was in England.

Now, almost a year later, Beatrice Houdini asked for the Rev. Ford to come and see her at her home. He duly arrived, and while there, went into a trance and relayed a message to Mrs. Houdini, apparently from her late husband. The message contained ten words, one single word, plus a nine-word code that she and Houdini had secretly arranged for this very purpose - as proof of life after death. The code itself was the same one that she and Houdini had used many years before in the psuedo-mindreading act. It consisted of ten words, each word representing a number. That number in turn represented a letter of the alphabet. Here is the code with the first ten letters of the alphabet:

Pray = 1 A * Answer = 2 B * Say = 3 C * Now = 4 D * Tell = 5 E

Please = 6 F * Speak = 7 G * Quickly = 8 H * Look = 9 I * Be Quick = 10 J

To secretly convey the letter F, one has only to begin a sentence with the word, such as, ‘Please, concentrate a little harder.’ By using combinations of the above words, any letter can be conveyed. For example, if the performer said, ‘Answer now!’ That represents the numbers 2 and 4, and the 24th letter in the alphabet is X. A good two-person act using a code like this will conceal the target words in longer sentences, and humorous remarks made to the audience. It is never quite as deliberate as the examples given. You must also remember that complete words need to be conveyed to the assistant, therefore the code has to become second nature to the partnership - a hidden language that is both automatic and natural. The first word delivered was ‘Rosabelle,’ the name of a song that Beatrice had sang during the first show that she and Houdini had done together. The nine words, or phrases, that followed had to be decoded using the system just given. This spelled out the word ‘B-E-L-I-E-V-E.’

Mrs. Houdini, totally convinced that the message was genuine, signed an affidavit to that effect. She had no doubts.

IT'S ALL TOO MUCH
Surely the word of Mrs. Houdini on the authenticity of the message would be final. One would think so, but that is not how the debunking network operates. Remember, that if beaten on one front, they attack in other devious ways. The first thing they did was to concoct a newspaper report declaring Mrs. Houdini as 'delirious.' This appeared in the New York Times on 10 January 1929. They stated that she fell and banged her head, became ‘delirious,’ and knew not what she was saying. The truth is that she never did suffer from delirium or any other mental condition.

With Mrs. Houdini’s sanity taken care of, the discrediting of Arthur Ford quickly followed and without mercy. According to Rinn, they arranged for (probably bribed) a young female reporter of a New York City newspaper, to declare that she knew, fully twenty-four hours in advance, the contents of Arthur Ford’s trance message that he would deliver to Mrs. Houdini. She claimed to have obtained the information in ‘Spiritualistic circles.’ The journalist said that she wrote a report for her newspaper, the contents of which echoed the one in the New York Times. In that case she must have written the truth. She went on to say that she omitted the ‘conspiratorial’ information in her report in case it turned out to be a hoax. If you think about it, this does not make any sense.

She claims to have known twenty-four hours previously what Mr. Ford was going to say, then he went ahead and said it. How could she think it was a hoax? She knew it - he said it - sensational story. Of course, if she really knew nothing of the sort, then everything she said and wrote is in keeping with that lack of knowledge. If she really knew about a Spiritualistic conspiracy to deceive Mrs. Houdini, why then did she not warn her about this demon Spiritualist? If Mrs. Houdini was delirious, as the debunkers would like us to believe, the reporter could (and should) have warned a close friend. She did not because she obviously had nothing to report.

Joseph Rinn further claims that this reporter told her editor of what she had overheard while loitering on the periphery of ‘Spiritualistic circles.’ Disbelieving her (well she didn’t believe herself so we cannot blame her boss for disbelieving her too), he allegedly set a trap for Arthur Ford in an attempt to get at the truth. According to Rinn, and other writers, they invited Mr. Ford to an apartment where the newspaper editor, along with another reporter, hid himself in an adjoining room from where he could secretly listen. Apparently they got the truth out of Mr. Ford and they printed an article to that effect, under the banner headline, ‘HOUDINI MESSAGE A BIG HOAX!’ Where did this explosive article appear? Well, alas the meticulous Joseph Rinn fails to give the date and name of the journal, which he only refers to as ‘a New York City newspaper.’ Other writers were not as coy as Mr. Rinn as you will see in a moment.

If the above is true, why were the police not involved?

The assertion is that Arthur Ford attempted to extort $10,000 from Mrs. Houdini by fraudulent means. That this did not happen strongly suggests that the whole business was a vile conspiracy designed to publicly humiliate and discredit the Reverend Arthur Ford. In that sense it was more a case of criminal libel against a minister of the Spiritualist Church, and another example of the extremes to which some people will go to conceal the truth, and all in the name of psychical research.

PROFESSIONAL MUCK-RAKERS
That Joseph Rinn failed to mention either the name of the newspaper or its journalist is not surprising. The newspaper involved was the most notorious scandal-sheet of its day, the Graphic. And, the female reporter was, by reputation, as unscrupulous as they come. Her name was Rea Jaure. This information is available in several Houdini biographies, including the one by Milbourne Christopher (Houdini - the Untold Story, Cassel, 1969).

Rea Jaure was present when Arthur Ford delivered the message, along with a reporter from the New York Times. The account that she wrote in the Graphic, despite its reputation for scandal, contained the facts as she had witnessed them. That is why her report corresponded with the report that appeared in the New York Times.

So, why did the Graphic suddenly change its view? There are several published reasons as to why Rea Jaure and her boss turned against Arthur Ford. However, no other reason should be necessary if the hotel episode is to be believed. According to all accounts, the paper’s editor William Plummer, along with another member of staff signed affidavits stating that, while hidden in an adjoining room, they had written down everything that Ford had said. There were even independent witnesses who swore that they saw Ford enter the hotel. However, Ford declared that he never went to the hotel, and there were witnesses who could vouch for this also.


However, as often happens with this type of conspiracy, something went wrong. It turned out that a man, who somewhat resembled Arthur Ford, had been paid to go to the hotel and give the damning interview. The reason this was exposed is that whoever had hired the man - almost certainly someone from the Graphic - had refused to pay him the second instalment of his bribe, and so he ‘blew the gaff’ and exposed the deception.

ENTER JOSEPH DUNNINGER
After Houdini passed over, the great mentalist Joseph Dunninger took over Houdini’s mantel as the mouthpiece for the debunking network. Dunninger, though more articulate than Houdini, shared the same arrogance.

While Beatrice Houdini lay in her bed recovering from her illness and injured head, Dunninger paid her a visit. This was no social call; this was in fact his first mission as the debunking mouthpiece. He reminded Mrs. Houdini that the code she and her husband had used appeared in a 1928 Houdini biography written by Harold Kellock. This, however, was of minor significance. The code was not the mystery and can only be seen as a minor part of the evidence. The evidence was in the words that Arthur Ford delivered by way of the code.

James Randi lists Arthur Ford in his The Supernatural A-Z (Headline 1995). The (dis) information he cites is rather interesting. He claims that the Reverend Ford,

‘maintained huge files of data on all his sitters, and always travelled with a case full of information to be used to convince the sceptics and believers alike.’

This was a standard claim made by all debunkers when attacking Spiritualist mediums during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and Randi is obviously quoting an earlier source. With the arrival of the mass medium of television, it became apparent that this was no longer a viable means of attack. Mediums now appeared in front of millions of witnesses and delivered the same convincing evidence to obvious strangers, some secretly chosen by the TV companies to avoid collusion. Claims of ‘secret files of data’ suddenly vanished from the debunker’s hidden agenda only to be replaced by accusations of ‘cold-reading.’

Cold-reading was always part of the debunker’s attack strategy, but now became the main accusation. Cold-reading is the subtle extraction of information from a sitter, without their knowledge, during a sitting. It is an art that takes years to perfect. However, someone watching who has knowledge of the secret principles will easily detect them if they are used. Cold-reading is an ancient art, used effectively by conjurors when attempting a pseudo-psychic performance. It is also used by fraudulent mediums, many of whom are conjurors trying to make a fast buck.

In his Supernatural A-Z, Randi goes on to state that Beatrice Houdini admitted late in her life that she had actually given Arthur Ford the ‘famous survival code’ which he then went on to use as proof of Houdini’s survival of death.

Here we see Randi implying that the ‘secret code’ was the vital part of the Arthur Ford message. As I have already shown, the code was the least important element.


Another accusation often cited is that Mrs. Houdini and Arthur Ford conspired to make money by selling their story to the newspapers. In a recent book by Richard O’Neill called Mysterious Facts - Men and Monsters (Colour Library Books Ltd, 1993), it states:

‘Spiritualists rejoiced when Beatrice said medium Arthur Ford had received a genuine message - but when it was claimed that she was plotting with Ford to make money from the sensational news, she denied her statement.’

The above raises two questions, the first being; why would Beatrice Houdini wish to partake in such a criminal venture. Surely she was already financially comfortable. Her late husband was one of the highest paid entertainers in the world. He was well off despite losing money in his film ventures. Secondly; who made the above claim in the first place?

In her book, The Life and Many Deaths of Harry Houdini (Martin Secker & Warburg, 1993), Ruth Brandon answers the first question when she says that, according to Houdini’s lawyer, Mrs. Houdini was to receive half a million dollars in insurance payments.

As is usual, when the debunking network is active, the conclusions are contradictory and duplicitous, and rarely factual.
Some years after the controversy, Minnie Chester, the close friend who had nursed Mrs. Houdini when she was ill, said,

‘Until her death, Bess never denied that this was the exact message she and Harry had agreed on, that Halloween night when he lay dying. The newspapers decided it was all a hoax, that Harry Houdini hadn’t come back. Me? I believe....’ (The Great Houdini’s by M. Shavelson, W. H. Allen, 1977).

I'm too tired to ponder the pros and cons of what the two sides say here, but I am interested in informed opinions about this medium. I recently read The Other Side by bishop James Pike, an Anglican bishop who became convinced he had contacted his dead son through this medium (in a televised séance which caused a scandal) as well as via sittings with a medium called Ena Twigg. I'd be interested in any views/facts about her as well and about the bishop, who died at the end of the 60s on an expedition in the desert in Israel where he went looking to understand the places where Jesus was tempted in the wilderness (I think). He seems to me have been an interesting an courageous man who was not afraid to be controversial and say and do what he thought right despite reactions from others (for example, he was an early example of a liberal priest who doubted certain items of traditional dogma, such as the virgin birth, and said so.

PS the accounts of the sessions with the above-mentioned mediums (media??) in the book seemed pretty convincing, and appear to have convinced the bishop. Also, he only sought help from a medium after experiencing inexplicable poltergeist phenomena in  his house suggesting his son was trying to get his attention. This aspect is ridiculed on James Randi's website and much played down compared to the actual occurances described in the book, which does not do him credit (quote: "what he described as “evidential” events such as one day finding a safety pin on the floor which was open at an angle which he said was exactly the angle formed by the hands of a clock at the hour his son had died" - the "events are in fact considerably more numerous and surprisingly than this remark suggests).

Matthew,

The Houdini case was discussed in a thread prior to your joining the site.  I'm convincing that Ford perpetuated a fraud, but want to make two different observations.

(1) If Houdini had wanted to confirm his survival through a medium, surely he could have supplemented the message code with other unsolicited but verifiable information known only to his wife.  Swedenborg was able to discover such additional information from the other side.

(2) The mutual pledge of a Harvard professor, William James,  and a Columbia professor, James Hyslop, shuld be mentioned here.  William James was an expert on psychology and religious experience.  He and Hyslop promised each other that whoever died first would try to confirm his survival to the other.  WJ died first and nothing unusual happened; so Hyslop forgot about their mutual pledge.  A year later, Hyslop was contacted by a couple in Ireland who had been playing with a Ouija Board.  A William James kept on taking over the board and insisting that they convey a message to his friend William James.   The couple had heard of neither man and the message seemed too bizarre; so they resisted this order for months.  But WJ's persistence finally sparked their curiosity and they eventually tracked down Hyslop.  

The mesage was "Remember the red pyjamas."  At first Hyslop dismissed this as sheer nonsense and the Irish couple no doubt thought they had been duped.  But later, Hyslop recalled an incident when he and WJ had sailed to Paris for a conference.  It was winter and they had arrived before their luggage.  Hyslop needed to buy pyjamas, but could only find a gaudy red pair.  WJ had teased him incessantly over his lapse in taste.  

The message was an inside joke between friends.  More importantly, it was so concrete that it was hard to distort through philosphical bias.  It is probably for that reason that WJ chose such a bizarre message.

Don

Interesting and important examples, Don.  I would say this, however.  Houdini's illusions looked like all the verification evidence anyone would need.  Whether immersed in a tank in front of an audience, or hanging upside down, thousands would swear to the truth of the feat he seemed to perform (even if there was a trick).  Houdini himself was a master of illusion, and provided plenty of visual evidence while alive for things that did not truly occur - ironically his style was a template for those he sought to debunk, namely the false spiritualists.

If Ford received his information from a book published one year before, he must have realized that this fact could and would likely be discovered.  I can't say that I believe Ford's ADC with Houdini, however.  I just found the point/counter point arguments written up very interesting.  On the surface, it would have seemed to be a true ADC.  Who is to say that each medium may have the "chatty ease," (as you rightly say) that Swedenborg or others have?  The whole intricate twist of the "hoax" after the meeting, including reporters hiding to overhear Ford admit to perjury (why would he even in private?), the charges of the man in the hotel being a hired Ford-look alike, it all takes you through a convoluted warping of what should have been a simple matter.

So even when the facts fit for a verification, sometimes that alone does not make it true.  If the Ford episode was a hoax, it is a case in point.

BTW, I am sorry having missed your early thread on this.  I used Bruce's search function, but it did not pull up anything with Ford's name.

Matthew

Hi matthew and all   There are a lot of mediums out there what do prey on the weak and vunerable and make money out of it,which really goes against the grade and makes it harder for genuine mediums to prove themselves,i dont even know yet whether i am genuine medium as im not always getting it right but the difference is that i do not charge money as it goes against my strong beleif that being a medium is comforting those who have lost there loved ones and are so desperate to hear something from them, shouldnt mean they have to pay for it,it should be given to them freely from a medium with the love that spirit send through,im not saying im some kind of saint because im way from being that ,i just beleive that mediums are a loving channel for messages from spirit  to there loved ones,and also if i get it wrong its a genuine mistake and not a deliberate lie.

I always thought that houdini was boring and i remember,when i was a child my dad would always watch that movie about houdini and i would sit longing for it to finish,i dont personally know what houdini got out of it,i think he was totally boring and im glad the worlds moved on since houdini days.I can understand why his wife wanted some kind of message from him because she loved him,im going to see if i can get anything from him as i am practising being a medium but he may just decline my invitation because i said he was boring but i wont lose any sleep if he does,its up to him.

Love and God bless   Love juditha