Hi Heisenberg,

I have been researching the question of true, documented side effects to a medium from breaking the instructions or rules of a seance.  Other than the warnings you mention, I do not find any compelling literature to support the idea that you shouldn't turn the lights on, grab an apparition, etc. for fear of causing irreparable harm to the medium.  Any such references are noted by individual mediums (often cited only on V. Zammitt's site), mostly it appears to let them run the illusions/effects without question.

Helen Duncan, for example did not die until weeks after the seance was interrupted by the police, and was said by an examining doctor on the scene to have "advanced diabetes and heart disease."  I'm sure the shock of being raided by the police didn't help matters, but please....  What she was doing bound in a "spirit cabinet," (a common parlor trick device of the late 1800s)? - well it boggles the mind, as it was never a requirement for mediums and was adopted from the illusionists of the day.

Thompson's seances were reportedly rife with common or accomplished parlor tricks as well.  He would have himself bound, then draped behind a curtain, and certain thoroughly debunked items such as a spirit horn (which Houdini and others investigated reproduced the effect and disproved) would appear to fly around the room.  After his materializations, the curtain would be opened and it would be shown that he was still bound.  Bravo.  But, I mean come on, really.  This is a stage show not an ADC.

I don't distinguish between physical mediumship and mental or psychic contact, because each case should be afterlife contact either way.  I have seen myself that discarnate spirits begin to lose their association with the physical world in the second stage of death.  It is a matter as Swedenborg notes of correspondences; without physical equivalents in the realm of mind/spirit, certain earth associations and knowledge simply fade away.

The spirit horn, the whilrling levitating table, spirit writing slates were all used by the so called physical mediums, mostly since the age of spiritualism and illusionists.  I don't believe just any common person will always know recognize or know the illusions employed (this was true of Houidini's stage tricks as well).  The reason I am so strongly anti-"dog and pony show" mediumship is that I am so certain that it is, for the most part a sham.

I maintain that to contact the other side, with any real contact (physical or mental) there is no known logical reason that a show must be put on behind a curtain, and no compelling reason to allow the mediums to dictate the terms for our examination.  As you said either the contact is real or out and out fraud.  The problem is, if you accept the preconditions of the illusionists/mediums, then you prevent yourself from using your own tools of discernment. 

Illusionists have done amazing things.  David Copperfield made the statue of Liberty seem to disappear on live television.  Video of it is still available on youtube.  Yet it was a spectacular illusion.  There were thousands present on stage with him; most if not all present would have sworn to the fact that the towering statue dematerialized.  Yet Copperfield is an illusionist, and we know it was a clever trick (likely done with the audience sitting on the equivalent of a massive turntable which moved them rather than the statue). 

The Seybert report and Houdini's texts go into detail as to how most common physical medium tricks appear to work. 

But perhaps the greatest source (also available online is the modern book by a confessed physical medium named Lamar Keene called "The Psychic Mafia," in which he describes, in detail how he performed all the parlor tricks described with spirit horns and the like - and how the medium community he was part of knew all about it: 

http://members.fortunecity.com/misteryo/pm1.html

We all need to use our own powers of discernment here, but most of all, we should continue to explore on our own, in different ways - always mindful that our own explorations are usually the path to discovery. 

Matthew

Hi Heisenberg,

The PEAR studies were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  People were allowed to critique the effort, yet the final results stood the criticism - though some interpret the findings in their own manner.

As to your question about attending Thompson's seances - I would not be averse to it, but it is not on my bucket list.  Let us, if you will delve into how he decided to use spirit horns, spirit cabinets etc., in order to communicate with the deceased.  These devices have been notoriously debunked, so there is a high likelihood, that he learned his techniques from an accomplished illusionist.  What exactly does that tell you about his "gift"?  Is there any reason he has to use these devices developed by the illusionists?  None of the visits from other mystics or people from TMI make any mention of the need to use "spirit horns" or bind a medium in a spirit cabinet behind a curtain and turn the lights out.  The simplicity behind the idea that this is a set up for illusion is so clear.  Keane, in his book the Psychic Mafia laughed at the general public saying that a "true believer" would always buy into his ploy.  Even after he came out and said he never really made contact, he was still approached.   Ah well.

Whirling tables, spirit horns and slate writing all came around during the same era - and many, many were exposed as frauds.  Houdini and the other investigators who were magicians were amazed that the physical mediums took stage gimicks directly from their known repetoire! 

Do I want to see a medium bound, put behind a curtain, then have the lights dimmed?  No.  Not unless you promise me free tickets to Vegas and a steak dinner for me and my family as part of the deal.

I am open to real contact.  I leave the possibility out there that a rare legit. medium may exist who does the physical stuff, but for the most part - everything I know about consciousness and the afterlife shouts fraud and hucksterism in this arena. 

I am continuing to evaluate both the Scole video and the particulars, so I will post more when I get a chance.

Matthew

Just a thought I had earlier.

If physical mediumship is fraud then why are people like David Thompson allowed to get away with it?

Surely in this kind of mediumship fraud would be the easiest to detect especially with what you have described Matthew.

Mental mediumship is more difficult of course but there could still be evidence especially if hot reading was involved, cold reading will be easily detectable too, by the right people of course.

Other than a disclaimer on a receipt, which is put on some psychic hotlines (for entertainment purposes only) I can't see how they aren't all doing a stretch in prison for fraud.

If I bought a t.v and when I got home the box was full of slabs with no t.v and a lot of other people have had the same experience as myself, I'm pretty sure that the authorities would not be best pleased by this. Fraudulent mediumship is the same thing as this, fraud is fraud no matter what the subject is.

So why is it allowed to happen?

It's a pretty simple question but nevertheless is quite an important factor in this I think.

Andy

P.S. I'm sure that people have already complained of fraud.

I agree, fraudulent mediums should be exposed.

I'm skeptical of mental mediums because of well-documented cases in which a psychologist created a fictional character and asked the mediun to channel him, and the medium channeled this fictional character accurately and paranormally as if he were really dead and were trying to reassure the sitter.  I'm also skeptical because of cases in which the medium channels a supposedly deceased personality accurately and paranormally, only to learn later that the sitter was mistaken about the channeled person's demise and that the channeled person was alive during the sitting and knew nothing about it.

In my view, the most compelling cases of physical mediumship are summarized in David Fontana's book, "Is There an Afterlife?"

See Heis,

I disagree.  Because of the sheer hucksterism of the illusionists, and all the facts involved in having to turn off the lights - which never was required prior to the age of the illusionists in the 1800s - it makes more sense to me that the best method of contact is the connection by the mental medium in ways which appear to have a verification. 

However, I should say this.  Because fraud is often found with any second hand knowledge, it is the self-exploration that TMI, Bruce and others propose that is the best method of making afterlife contact.  Unfortunately, this takes the most work - to open your mind to exploring the possibilities and rid yourself of hang ups and hindering belief systems. 

I am not as bothered as Don is by the examples he mentions of errors in mental mediumship; to me it verifies that there is a mental plane of existence independent of the physical world.  If a medium may read minds - where exactly does that take place?  Conventional science does not truly believe in the existence of a mental plane.  To science, mind is sort of a redundant process, not a true plane of existence.

If a medium can pick up details on a living person's mind, or on a mentally created story, there are other implicatons here - that the realm of thought is a real plane, independent of the physical world, possibly our "real" plane of existence.  Yes, yes I know, the purists would prefer that the medium's abilities always contact just Focus 27 or other realms of the dead in the same way each time.   

Bottom line - find your own ways to explore.  And why are you trying to make contact, anyway?  What do you do after knowing that there is an afterlife?  How do you live your life in a meaningful way?  That sounds corny, but it deserves a thread of its own.


M

Ah yes, the scole experiments is a perfect example of how not to perform paranormal testing.

The following is true:

1. Make sure you let the medium choose the location! Don't have the testers supply a closed laboratory environment for the testing to take place. This helps add confusion and possible scams.

2. Always make sure there is a period in which the film is unwatched and could easily be tampered with.

3. If the mediums say no infrared cameras, simply oblige them. They couldn't be trying to hide something in the dark... could they....?

The bottom line? The scole experiments were a joke. A bad joke. Until someone takes the mediums, provides full body cavity searches, and re-does the experiments in a controlled, multi camera'd, laboratory room, we can consider all of the results completely and utterly suspect.

I see the old "if it's not done in a laboratory then it's not scientific" argument has been brought up.

I agree with heis. If you want to go even further then, when they test nuclear weapons they certainly are not tested in a lab. Imagine if they were. "how did the test go?" "Well, the lab was here but now it has disappeared along with the scientists and any data which could be taken as evidence"

That argument is most certainly a joke  .

And yes I am taking the piss here.

One thing I have not mentioned is that I find physical mediumship the most far fetched out of all afterlife evidence, but on the other hand as I was not at scole and I have never been to a seance then I feel I can't really say whether  it's real or not.

As I mentioned in my last post, if it's fraudulent then the evidence of fraud should be obvious although scole has been and gone so it's nigh on impossible to find evidence of fraud from that. However David Thompson and also the couple who were behind the scole experiments are still at it. So why are they able to do this if it's fraud?

I'm not expecting an answer to this but for me this question needs to be answered with damning evidence for fraud and for the people in question to be prosecuted for me to say that's it's all fake. If it can't then as far as I'm concerned it's open to debate and can't be swept under the carpet so easily.

Matthew, thanks for the recommendation I haven't had the time as of yet to read it but I will and will post again with my thoughts on it.

Andy