By their fruits ye shall know them

Here's a minor incident from Charles Drayton Thomas's Life Beyond Death (pp. 69-70). Thomas sat for many years with the English medium Gladys Osborne Leonard. He became convinced that he was in communication with his deceased father and his deceased sister, Etta. A careful investigator, he did his best to rule out alternative explanations such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and "super-ESP."

He relates this episode as evidence that discarnate communicators are aware of events on earth that are unknown to the sitters. I found the case interesting because it includes a "newspaper test."

Thomas writes:

During the autumn of 1921, our two servants, who are sisters, had their mother to stay with them. While at our house one of her friends brought her a fine pear. This was put away for safe keeping at the back of a cupboard. There it lay forgotten. It was near the end of November when, in cleaning out the cupboards, the pear was discovered in an advanced stage of decay.

Of this trifling incident neither my wife nor I knew anything. But about two weeks later, namely, at my sitting on December 9th, the following remark was made:—

"Ask Clara what has gone wrong in the cupboard; we got an idea that something had not been keeping well. We heard of it lately."

This was a puzzle to me, and my wife could throw no light upon it.

At the next sitting, December 20th, Feda said:— "They think there is something in that remark about the cupboard. Has Clara solved the mystery yet?"

I had to reply in the negative, but subsequently the above facts were ascertained after inquiry made in the kitchen.

I took the first opportunity of reporting this to my communicators. But this was not the end. During the next sitting it was worked ingeniously into a Times test, thus:—

"In tomorrow's Times, page one, column two and near the top, is a word—it is really a name but one which he is making into a word to describe the mystery of the cupboard."

This was given on January 20th, 1922, at 9.5 p.m. I sent a note of it to the Society for Psychical Research that evening. Next day I saw, at the top of column two of the Times, first page, the name Pearson. It will be noticed that the first four letters of this name form the precise word which was wanted.

In the above we see trifles used for specific ends. I wanted no information about these trivialities, but I needed evidence that my father and sister were familiar with our home. And by such allusions they convinced me more quickly than had they confined attention to important matters within my knowledge.

My father knows that a shallow criticism may object, "It is strange that one who returns from heaven should pry into cupboards, etc." He reasonably remarks that, in pursuit of his purpose, he utilises whatever may serve, not disdaining references to homely objects and unimportant events. Since his avowed object is to prove continued nearness and awareness, only those who fail to see the value of that proof will be offended by the means employed in achieving it.

Of course, it could be argued that the initial information about something "not keeping well" in the cupboard is too vague to be evidential. But when combined with the newspaper test, the communications become more convincing.

It should be emphasized that this is only one of scores of examples presented in Thomas's book. I cannot see how any skeptic could explain away the cumulative weight of this testimony, except by saying that Thomas made the whole thing up. This possibility can never be completely discounted, but to me at least, Thomas's good sense and impeccable honesty are readily apparent in his writings.

Comments

[The Major]

"My father knows that a shallow criticism may object, "It is strange that one who returns from heaven should pry into cupboards, etc." He reasonably remarks that, in pursuit of his purpose, he utilises whatever may serve, not disdaining references to homely objects and unimportant events. Since his avowed object is to prove continued nearness and awareness, only those who fail to see the value of that proof will be offended by the means employed in achieving it."

I thought that was very interesting. Basicaly saying that you just can't please some people.

Those moments that have spoken to us may seem trivial and meaningless to others. When all's said and done, it doesn't matter though. It's what it says to you.

My personal 'moment' may seem silly to others, and as a result it's not something I'm keen to share, but it had signifance to me.

[Art]

I've recently started back watching John Edward Cross Country on WE TV. The majority of information that John Edward comes across with is rather mundane and could apply to a lot of people, but every once in a while he'll say something that blows me away, that is very specific and there is no way he could have known about it. That's the stuff that keeps me coming back for more.

[Michael H]

I cannot see how any skeptic could explain away the cumulative weight of this testimony, except by saying that Thomas made the whole thing up.

That must be the explanation, then!

[TomC]

Michael H.
if you apply the Occam's Razor, then Thomas must made the whole thing up. Since you can't prove aferlife nor any psychic phenomena, and the theories behind afterlife and paranormal are so complex that the simplest explanation is that he made the whole thing up.

personally i think such approach is lazy and usually lead to denial. it also trivialize our human experience.

maybe our feeling and intuition and awareness are nothing but chemical reactions occuring in the brain- but then it seems that the brain must be so complex and contain billions of networks and interconnections, but even then we still can't explain consciousness- so if we apply occam's razor- perhaps the simplest explanation of all is that we are more than our brains.

shrug.

[Michael H]

. . . perhaps the simplest explanation of all is that we are more than our brains.

Ya think?

;-)

[william]

. . .” perhaps the simplest explanation of all is that we are more than our brains.”

When I was a young boy on the farm I used to spend a lot of time working in the forest and often I would look up to the sky and wonder there has to be more to this world than live and be bitten by mosquitoes then die and if that is the reality then for what purpose. Seemed rather cruel to me.

Now my granddaughter is 3 years old and is already asking her father where did she live before she was born and sees people standing next to her father and mother that they do not see. Most of these “people” she has no name for but one she had a name for but a name that as far as we can tell does not exist.

I wonder if children can see things (other dimensions?) we cannot see? These are not imaginary playmates, as she does not play with them just claims to see them.

“I cannot see how any skeptic could explain away the cumulative weight of this testimony, except by saying that Thomas made the whole thing up.”

If we look close debunkers very seldom if ever debunk the entire paranormal event just bits and pieces. Recently one of these debunkers was showing others how a certain medium was able to perform these paranormal events. It was a huge joke as a valid simulation and did not even come close to what the medium actually was able to do in front of sitters.

I suspect they have to do such things to keep their materialistic beliefs intact. One admittance of a paranormal phenomenon wipes out their entire system of beliefs. And I suspect that would be too much for the ego to handle.

[Michael H]

I came across this in Hall's introduction to the Alchemy section of The Secret Teachings:

"Those assuming that all alchemists were of unsound mentality would be forced to put in this category nearly all the philosophers and scientists of the ancient and medieval worlds. Emperors, princes, priests, and common townsfolk have witnessed the apparent miracle of metallic metamorphosis. In the face of existing testimony, anyone is privileged to remain unconvinced, but the scoffer elects to ignore evidence worthy of respectful consideration."

Sound familiar at all?

[Tony S]

if you apply the Occam's Razor, then Thomas must made the whole thing up. Since you can't prove aferlife nor any psychic phenomena, and the theories behind afterlife and paranormal are so complex that the simplest explanation is that he made the whole thing up.

personally i think such approach is lazy and usually lead to denial. it also trivialize our human experience.

Although some skeptics use Occam's Razor in that manner, it is an improper use of OR.

First, if you have two or more theories, they must each fit all the facts, not just some.

Second, Occam's Razor only says the simplest theory is PROBABLY correct. It could be wrong.

Third, if you propose an alternate explanation 'ie he made the whole thing up', then the burden of proof is on you to show this is true. Many skeptics act as though they don't have to prove a thing, claiming 'extraordinary claims require ordinary evidence', which is lazy. That's fine if you are exposing the weaknesses in the claimant's theory, but if you are proposing your own, then you need to show it is probable

[Michael Tymn]

Michael, some books tests similar to those carried out by Drayton Thomas are reported by Pamela Glenconner in "The Earthen Vessel," published in 1921. As I recall, Thomas got the idea of the book tests from Lady Glenconner, although it may be the other way around. I'm pretty sure they were conducting their tests with Mrs. Leonard at the same time. However, I don't recall any newspapers tests being reported by Glenconner.

[william]

“'extraordinary claims require ordinary evidence'”

I suspect they do not believe their statements that this medium was a fraud or the researcher was a liar is an extraordinary claim.

With a well documented UFO incident in England the skeptics stated it was the light tower but lo and behold the UFO investigators found that the light tower had a shield from the time it was built not to show light in that direction where the UFO was seen. They just stated their analysis on what they believe is their rational superior intellect as fact without a shed of evidence.

Anyhow can you imagine what people in the 22nd century will think of popular beliefs that existed in the 20th century? I suspect the same way we look at beliefs in the past centuries where knowledgeable people thought the earth was flat and that the earth revolved around the sun.

To believe that matter creates consciousness, love, intelligence, and compassion and that the only dimension that exists is this physical dimension will bring a smile to their faces. They will smirk in disbelief that humans could believe such a thing.

Such beliefs will be displayed in their museums for children to walk through and learn about their ancestors and each child and adult will think to himself or herself; we in the 22nd century could never make such irrational mistakes today. The very same way we do today when we look at beliefs in past centuries.

[Kevin]

An interesting excerpt, Michael. I'm always especially attentive to veridical information obtained in any manner beyond the 5 physical senses. I've noted that my own dream-acquired precognitions are more often pertaining to what might be referred to as "trivial" as opposed to profound. To me, the nature of the information is secondary to phenomenon itself, the mode of transmission/reception, the experience as is. A skeptical comment about "prying into cupboards" tells us nothing about discarnate communications but reveals a great deal about the skeptical mindset. I sometimes can't help wondering if ghosts/poltergeists are the dead who can't BELIEVE they're dead. It's easier, I suppose, to speculate about cupboards and pears, instead.

[Filip vd]

if you apply the Occam's Razor, then Thomas must made the whole thing up. Since you can't prove aferlife nor any psychic phenomena, and the theories behind afterlife and paranormal are so complex that the simplest explanation is that he made the whole thing up.

The simplest explanation depends in which metaphysical principles you believe. Materialism is a metaphysical assumption it is not proven science. And you said it yourself TomC the simplest idea could very well be that the mind is more than the brain. It all depends from which point one is looking and of course from your own experience.
And one could add einstein his idea: make it simpel but not simpeler!
Saying that he just made it all up would be making it simpeler than it is as he sent the note to the Society for Psychical Research as an external verification...
This reminds me of an article on anti matters "who is afraid of life after death" which showed that skeptics often have a cynical world view, where all these people who said they had some strange experience have to be lying, cheating or just intellectually dumb... Without any burden of proof for the skeptics as Tony nicely pointed out.

greets,
Filip

[Tony S]

With a well documented UFO incident in England the skeptics stated it was the light tower but lo and behold the UFO investigators found that the light tower had a shield from the time it was built not to show light in that direction where the UFO was seen. They just stated their analysis on what they believe is their rational superior intellect as fact without a shed of evidence.

Yep, happens all the time in the UFO field. The planet Venus is a favorite, even when it is in the wrong part of the sky at the time. And the latest trend seems to be to claim that any entities seen were simply owls, without proof.

[Michael H]

Owls????

[Tony S]

Owls????

Joe Nickell of CSICOP has been trying to claim several famous entity encounters were nothing but owls:

http://www.ufomystic.com/wake-up-down-there/kelly-hopkinsville-owls-skeptics/

[Michael H]

The strangest thing, Tony, is I have little doubt that Nickell actually believes that.

Thanks for the link.

[william]

"Lucky Sutton and Billy Ray Taylor, the two who shot at the figures until near dawn, reportedly emptied dozens of loads of buckshot and bullets at their targets, including the first one at very close range"

And we wonder why they do not land on the white house lawn as the skeptics suggest they should. They have to have superior intelligence then we humans and even we humans have sense enough not to land on the white house lawn.

One can only imagine how they view our level of consciousness. I suspect dreadfully hostile and fearful. Could we be a master's thesis for one of their students or maybe the way we humans often kill one another for another’s resources a high school project gone bad.

[Joel F]

I cringe every time I see a self-proclaimed skeptic invoke Occam's Razor. Occam (more properly William of Ockham) was a 14th Century cleric and Scholastic. His method is therefore not a natural part of science, given that it predated the scientific method by centuries. Moreover, Occam's Razor is entrenched in both belief, rather than actual knowledge, and aesthetics, stating a preference for short proofs rather than demonstrating they are somehow fundamentally more accurate.

In the period leading up to the Renaissance, Scholasticism sought to reconcile classical knowledge, e.g., Aristotelian logic and other Greek and Roman teachings, with the New Testament, deemed by the Vatican as containing all -- I repeat for emphasis, ALL -- useful and correct knowledge.

William's proposition, later renamed Occam's Razor, was that a short, simple argument was preferrable to something complex when reconciling two potentially or apparently contradictory belief systems. Everything else surrounding the point of conflict was merely redacted.

That's it. Belief systems and aesthetics. Faith and personal preference. Short and sweet. There's Occam's Razor at work as he seems to have intended.

[william]

There have been some comments on this blog concerning humans spending time doing research into life after death, meaning and purpose of life, etc. This is a quote from the book on the edge of the etheric by Findlay.

“Is anything of God’s contriving endangered by inquiry? Was it the system of the universe or the monks that trembled at the telescope of Galileo? Did the circulation of the firmament stop in terror because Newton laid his daring finger on its pulse?” Lowell.

I suspect it might be a question of balance but I find this research into the evidence in such matters challenging and fascinating. Also I find interesting how little is known by the general public that such research exists. Findlay truly appeared to have a remarkable medium to work with for many years.

The very fact that he separated evidence into A1 and A2 evidence suggests he was concerned with the validity of his evidence. This is what I love about this blog the links and recommendations that lead one to such books as Findlay’s.

Thanks for the update on Occam’s Razor. For some reason I never did get too excited about Occam’s Razor as a validation tool.

[marcos f]

With a well documented UFO incident in England the skeptics stated it was the light tower but lo and behold the UFO investigators found that the light tower had a shield from the time it was built not to show light in that direction where the UFO was seen. They just stated their analysis on what they believe is their rational superior intellect as fact without a shed of evidence.

I guess this is a reference to the Rendlesham Forest incident.

It was actually a local forest worker who suggested the lighthouse explanation, not the skeptics. The lighthouse does have a shield but it doesn't cover the beam shining towards the "landing site". A video was made from the site shortly after the incident, and the lighthouse beam was clearly visible; the flashes every 5 seconds also synced up perfectly with the real-time audio recording of the witnesses reporting the light coming on and off.

This page goes into great detail about the lighthouse, and the links at the side cover other aspects of the case.

Also note that Jenny Randles, the leading UFO researcher who first championed the incident, has since changed her mind about its cause:

"While some puzzles remain, we can probably say that no unearthly craft were seen in Rendlesham Forest. We can also argue with confidence that the main focus of the events was a series of misperceptions of everyday things encountered in less than everyday circumstances."

(quote from The UFOs That Never Were, Randles, Roberts, Clarke.)

[william]

HALT: 3:05. At about ten degrees, horizon, directly north, we’ve got two strange objects, er, half moon shape, dancing about, with coloured lights on ‘em. At, er, guess to be about five to ten miles out, maybe less. The half moons have now turned into full circles as though there was an eclipse or something there for a minute or two.

HALT: 03:15. Now we’ve got an object about 10 degrees directly south, 10 degrees off the horizon. And the ones to the north are moving. One’s moving away from us.

NEVELS: Moving out fast.

VOICE: This one on the right’s heading away, too.

HALT: They’re both heading north. Hey, here he comes from the south, he’s coming toward us now.

HALT: Now we’re observing what appears to be a beam coming down to the ground.

SHOUT IN BACKGROUND: Colours! [?]

HALT: This is unreal. [Laughs]

[IAN’S NOTE: RAF Watton logged a call from Bentwaters at 03.25 am on December 28 reporting a UFO. Evidently Halt called them while these sightings were going on, but Watton reported that they saw nothing on radar.]

HALT: 03:30 and the objects are still in the sky, although the one to the south looks like it’s losing a little bit of altitude. We’re turning around and heading back toward the base.

HALT: The object to the south is still beaming down lights to the ground.

HALT: 04:00 hours. One object still hovering over Woodbridge base at about five to ten degrees off the horizon, still moving erratic and similar lights and beaming down as earlier.

Yea sounds like a lighthouse or a fireball to me. Not. Any excuse will be used to discredit a sighting. But the lighthouse does appear to shine in the woods. Did our history channel researchers take night video or take the word on one person concerning the shield on the lighthouse. If they took the word of one person and did not check it out for themselves they may want to rethink the title of researchers.

[marcos f]

That was a different set of lights.

The lighthouse was responsible for a flashing light near ground level to the east. We can say this with a degree of certainty since (1) the lighthouse lines up exactly with the source of the light, even the correct height, as viewed from the spot of the sighting, (2) the period of rotation of the light syncs up exactly with the witnesses saying "there it is ... there it is again" on their radios, and (3) the lighthouse was visible from that spot at night, as can be seen on the video taken at the time on this page. (some UFO websites make the claim, based on recent visits, that the beam isn't visible from the forest, unaware of the fact that the beam in use today has only 1/10th of the power of the one used in 1980)

The conversation you've quoted refers to another set of lights in the sky to the south and north. Although the description sounds quite dramatic, it should be noted that after that initial radio exchange, they remained in the same position for the next two or three hours — the same position at the time as the first-magnitude stars Vega and Deneb (in the north) and Sirius (the brightest star in the night sky) in the south. There's a good description here of the various factors involved in producing the visual effects mentioned over the radio; for example, if you want to see the "half-moon shapes", try focusing a set of binoculars on a bright star — this is exactly what the witnesses were doing. All of the effects have been observed in other cases of mistaken identity of celestial objects — the changing colours happen when stars are close to the horizon, refracting their light through more of the atmosphere (these were at 10 degrees) and the appearance of "beams" is produced when the eye is dazzled — you can see the same effect when Venus is visible.

Bear in mind this is all taking place a few minutes after their close encounter with a lighthouse, and they're understandably in a suggestible state. It would be odd indeed if, after having mistaken the lighthouse beam for something out of the ordinary, they then went on to stumble upon a genuine sighting of three starlike UFOs that just happened to be in the same position as three of the brightest stars in the night sky.

[marcos f]

Minor correction: the night video was taken in 1983, not the time of the incident (1980).

[william]

I find it difficult to believe that any logical person would confuse a lighthouse beam with UFO's.

I suspect there is more to this story than a lighthouse beam. but not being there to witness it myself I cannot validate what they saw that night.

"We can also argue with confidence that the main focus of the events was a series of misperceptions of everyday things encountered in less than everyday circumstances."

what confidence? she was not there. she also writes for the skeptic journal. that raises a red flag for me.

I have discovered over time not to trust anything those people say although my research on her suggests she is open to the idea of UFO's unlike most skeptics.

[Teri]

Come off it William. Marcos completely explained it. You just have to accept it. Don't hold on to an untenable position. It just calls other stuff you say into question. It calls your judgment and your objectivity into doubt.

[william]

“I suspect there is more to this story than a lighthouse beam. But not being there to witness it myself I cannot validate what they saw that night.”

Teri apparently you did not read this statement I made so I quoted it again. “It just calls other stuff you say into question” I expect everything I say on here or anywhere to be called into question. When it comes to the paranormal or unexplained events readers very seldom trust other’s statements or positions or what they have been witness to.

This is a classic case of a lack of trust of what someone claimed to see. Read what the man claimed to have seen then look at the evidence of the lighthouse light. Tons of difference. I don’t have to accept what he says to believe that UFO’s exist I already believe they exist.

I have seen two UFO’s flying in the Arizona Mountains and I don’t expect anyone to believe me except of course the person that was with me.

From my bias point of view it is the ultimate in arrogance to think they don’t exist. We are not alone. Even the governor of our great state of Arizona had one fly right over the top of his head the size of a football field and the air force claimed they were flares from F 16’s. Should I believe the government Teri or just Marcos?

As far as skeptics my trust of what they have to say is near zero. Ok below zero. I did not get a chance to see the entire history channel UFO researchers look into this case but if they took the word of one person (which I saw) concerning the shield on the lighthouse and did not check this out at night to validate his statement then my trust of their ability to do UFO research is greatly diminished.

“You just have to accept it”

Teri those may be the most dangerous words in the English language. Every great mind :-) that has ever existed was told you just have to accept it. I.e. common accepted beliefs.

[marcos f]

I find it difficult to believe that any logical person would confuse a lighthouse beam with UFO's ... Read what the man claimed to have seen then look at the evidence of the lighthouse light.

Again, I'd like to stress that there were two sets of lights, observed at different times that night (and the night before as well, in the case of the lighthouse beam).

The accounts of the first set describe a slow-flashing light, reappearing every five seconds, coming from the exact same direction and relative position as a lighthouse beam of period five seconds which would have been visible from that location. It's hard to see how anyone can argue that this wasn't the lighthouse beam, in view of the evidence on the page I linked to.

The description of the second set — which only appeared on the second night, after the witnesses were already spooked by two "sightings" of the lighthouse — is of three starlike objects, in the same position as three known bright stars. This is the description you quoted, and on first reading it sounds dramatic, as if the lights are swooping down and flying about the forest. Try reading it again in the right context: these are starlike objects being viewed through high-power binoculars by men who have already been spooked by their lighthouse "sighting", exhibiting a bunch of visual effects associated with looking at stars through binoculars. The clincher is that they hadn't changed position three hours later, except for the observation that one of them had "lost altitude" — which is also exactly what you'd expect that particular star to do after a few hours due to the Earth's rotation.

what confidence? she was not there. she also writes for the skeptic journal. that raises a red flag for me.

Randles is far from being a skeptic. She's the former director of investigations with BUFORA (British UFO Research Association) and was the main investigator of the incident over two decades. She was responsible for digging up much of the evidence on the incident you'll find on UFO websites. The quote I gave was a brave admission, after years of promoting the incident as genuine, that she now thinks the whole series of events can be explained in terms of more mundane causes.

From my bias point of view it is the ultimate in arrogance to think they don’t exist ... should I believe the government Teri or just Marcos?

I haven't said anything about UFOs in general. You brought up this specific case as an illustration of how quick the ever-present "skeptics" are to jump to false conclusions based on "not a shred of evidence"; I've pointed out that there's a great deal of carefully investigated evidence and that even the most well-known researcher of the incident has changed her mind.

[william]

Marcos thank you for your time in presenting another side of this case to me. Much appreciated.

When it comes to researchers I admit I am skeptical and indeed that may bias my opinion of anyone that claims to be a researcher. I have spent time on university campuses and in organizations working with researchers and even teaching researchers in seminars and they are not infallible. I suspect their advanced educational background can hinder their objectivity and make them more bias than someone not claiming to be a researcher. Paradigms again but will not go there on this day.

Again thanks for taking the time to present another side to this case. Do you know if the history channel researchers took the time to do night videos in the direction of the light tower or only took the word of the lighthouse attendant?

This case brings up a very interesting question about the testimony of a witness at a criminal trial. One has to wonder how many are on death row or in prison because of the testimony of a witness.

[marcos f]

OK, I've been confused by the references to the History Channel but now I see what you're talking about — apparently there was a documentary aired this year in which they interviewed the current lighthouse attendant and he said the beam couldn't be seen from the forest. He's partly correct in that it can't be seen from the vast majority of the forest as it's obscured both by the shield and surrounding hills.

But the "landing site" is one of the few parts of the forest from which it can be seen. Proof of this is the 1983 BBC video linked earlier. It's even visible today: there's a video here of the lighthouse taken from the landing site in April this year. The current bulb has only 10% of the power of that used in 1980 (and is whiter), but it still gives off an eerie, pulsing orange glow, especially when different camera focus settings are used, corresponding to the zooms that would have been used on the witnesses' binoculars as they thought it was much closer than its actual 6 or so miles.

So I don't imagine the documentary crew attempted to check the lighthouse keeper's claims, or possibly they didn't know the exact location of the landing site.