Some problems with mediumship in the heyday of Spiritualism

Recently we've been discussing the possibility that the heyday of Spiritualism constituted a "mania," in which normally sober observers found their judgment impaired by what Alan Greenspan would call "irrational enthusiasm." While the very best research from that period was well-designed and difficult to refute, there are undeniably problems with other claims, reports, and observations. What follows is a grab-bag of items in no particular order - things I've noticed in my reading over the years. I also offer a brief counterpoint whenever it seems appropriate. 

Inconsistencies. 

Spirit communicators offered conflicting statements on important subjects, most notably reincarnation. In the early years, there was little mention of reincarnation. After Madame Blavatsky popularized the idea of reincarnation through her Theosophy movement, mediums started talking about it a lot more. It's hard to resist the conclusion that the content of the mediums' messages, at least in this case, was influenced by what the sitters expected to hear.

Counterpoint: The greater part of the commuications was largely consistent, and this general consistency is found in more modern communications and in other afterlife evidence, such as near-death experiences and deathbed visions. Robert Crookall documented these consistencies in several books in the 1960s. 

Failed predictions. 

Spirit communicators made failed predictions, which were generally overly optimistic in nature. For instance, they predicted an era of universal peace and harmony following the First World War. Even during the buildup to the WWII they insisted there would not be another global conflict. They also predicted that the truth of Spiritualism would be universally acknowledged within 100 years and would be part of mainstream science.

Some of the people who analyzed the so-called "cross correspondences" became obsessed with the strange notion that a one of their number was destined to bear a son who would become a new messiah. This child was being "designed" by spirit entities to be a superior being, one who would lead the human race to a new era of peace. Though a child was born, he did not fulfill these expectations, though he did grow up to be a notably spiritual man who eventually became a Benedictine monk. The story is told here. 

Spirit controls.  

The spirit "controls" (i.e., spirit guides) exhibited many oddities, could not convincingly confirm their earthly existence, and often exhibited cartoonish or stereotyped behavior. More discussion here. 

Dogmatism and credulity.  

Some investigators seemed to become overly enthusiastic about their findings and exhibited dogmatism and credulity. James Hyslop, an early convert to belief in spirit communication and life after death, insisted that the case was proved beyond any doubt–clearly an overstatement. Arthur Conan Doyle was taken in by a number of fake mediums, notably the Davenport Brothers; he was fooled by obviously fake photographs taken by children in the "Cottingley fairies" case; and in one notable instance he insisted that Harry Houdini, the escape artist and famed debunker, must be a medium himself because only by dematerializing could he perform his escapes!

Bad science.  

Some of the claims made by paranormal investigators of the time clash with our modern understanding of science. For instance, in his book Thirty Years Among the Dead (PDF), psychiatrist Carl Wickland tells how his wife's mediumship helped cure mentally ill patients by freeing them from obsessing spirits. But with everything we now know about the chemical basis for much of mental illness, how plausible is the spirit-obsession hypothesis?

It was not unusual for alleged spirit communicators themselves to provide incorrect scientific statements. Many of these involved "the ether"–the invisible substance then widely believed to pervade the universe and to serve as a transmission medium for electromagnetic waves. Today the ether has been generally discredited, although there are occasional attempts to bring it back in a modified form. Other inaccurate scientific statements are found in The Spirits' Book, a collection of spirit communications compiled by Allan Kardec. (Example, passage 46: "Do not the tissues of the human body and of animals contain the germs of a multitude of parasites, that only await for their development the occurrence of the putrid fermentation necessary to their life?" This appears to be an endorsement of spontaneous generation, a popular view of the time, but discredited today.) It's hard to trust "the spirits" if they don't know basic scientific facts.

Counterpoint: Science writer Norman Friedman believes that channeled information attributed to Seth, and found in the works of Jane Roberts, sheds valuable light on quantum mechanics.

Bad history.  

Other channeled information included what appears to be clearly incorrect historical data. Edgar Cayce, for instance, made claims about the origins of the Bible and the circumstances and time periods in which it was written that would not be endorsed by any accredited biblical scholars today. His statements seem to be in line with what would be expected from someone with a layman's knowledge of the subject.

Counterpoint: Stephan A. Schwartz's work with psychics at archaeological digs has resulted in some impressive finds. Schwartz's work is meticulously recounted in his books, notably The Alexandria Project. 

Spirit photography.  

Some investigators accepted spirit photographs whose fakery is embarrassingly obvious today. Others were not deterred by photos taken during séances that showed clear signs of fraud. A notable instance was the case of Eva C., who supposedly had the ability to manifest spirit faces out of ectoplasm. Photographs make it clear that the spirit faces were drawings clipped from the newspaper. In one photo it is even possible to see part of the newspaper's masthead showing through the paper. Nevertheless, the investigator researching Eva C. refused to believe the spirit faces had been faked, because he did not think there was any flaw in his security protocols. Even today, there are people who defend the mediumship of Helen Duncan, despite the embarrassingly phony “spirit guide” that shows up in photos taken while she was supposedly entranced.

Helen Duncan and her materialized "spirit guide." 

Fraud.  

A large number of physical and materialization mediums were exposed as frauds. A common tactic was to tackle the materialized “spirit” in the middle of the séance and hold on to it until the lights came up, at which point the struggling figure would be revealed as the medium in disguise. Even mediums who were caught in such deceptions retained some followers. Florence Cook was caught at least once, and arguably twice*, by such a method, yet her principal investigator, William Crookes, never admitted she was anything less than genuine.

(*In the one debatable instance, the “spirit” wriggled free before the lights could be turned on; accounts differ as to whether Florence, when found in her cabinet, was securely tied to her chair as she should have been, or was only loosely tied, the knots obviously having been undone.)

Counterpoint: Some physical mediums held up under scrutiny. Despite a known penchant for cheating when she could get away with it, Eusapia Palladino impressed highly experienced and skeptical investigators at the Naples sittings in 1908. D.D. Home was never caught in fraud, and performed in lighted rooms under close observation. 

Parochialism. 

Frequent messages from the spirit communicators indicated that Jesus Christ is effectively the leading light in the spirit world, a message that seems perhaps a bit too nicely calculated to appeal to the Judeo-Christian sensibilities of sitters and researchers.

Evolution.  

Messages about the nature of the afterlife and the ultimate purpose of existence seemed to borrow liberally from Emanuel Swedenborg's writings, with one significant alteration. In Swedenborg's system, there is no continuing evolution of the soul after death; the soul migrates to whatever sphere is most suitable and stays there for eternity. Most of the Spiritualist mediums, on the other hand, stated that souls inhabit a given sphere only temporarily and are constantly moving onward in accordance with a universal law of spiritual progress. This idea of spiritual evolution seems to have been inspired by the fashionableness of Darwinian evolution, giving a more modern and progressive spin to Swedenborg's ideas. But if the descriptions were influenced by cultural and social trends, do they reflect a higher reality or only the assumptions of the mediums and sitters?

Slate writing.  

Some researchers continued to accept the validity of so-called slate writing–messages written in chalk on slate tablets in the pitch dark séance room–even after slate writing had been exposed as fraudulent many times. Admittedly these researchers took elaborate pains to guard against fraud. Nevertheless, the long history of fakery in slate writing and the need to place the slate out of sight during part of the performance should be enough to cast doubt on these claims. 

Oddball claims. 

Spiritualism was characterized, in part, by fantastic stories that seem to have been taken seriously by at least some of its adherents. For instance, there was the often-told story of the sudden “apport" of Mrs. Guppy, a 300-pound medium who allegedly appeared out of nowhere during another medium's séance. The claim was that Mrs. Guppy had been dematerialized from her home many miles away and rematerialized on the séance table. Stories like this did not help the credibility of the Spiritualist movement with the general public, and led many to see Spiritualists as gullible and silly. The acceptance of such unlikely claims by some of Spiritualism's enthusiasts may give credence to the idea that a mania was at work - though, again, there is a core of serious research that resists easy debunking. 

 

 

Comments

[Paul]

It wouldn't be hard to find examples that support all of the features you mention above. It also isn't difficult to find evidence where the testimony of those who witnessed it is hard to impeach. I can't see how this moves the discussion on really.

It is impossible to change historical events. If everything was uniform and without fault, either we wouldn't be discussing the matter because it would be an accepted fact or cynics would perhaps be suggesting it is all faked because of the uniformity and consistency.

The evidence for survival and mediumship is, IMHO, strong. It isn't irrefutable and may never be other than on a personal basis as a result of direct experience.

[Zerdini]

I agree with Paul's comments.

A lot depends on what you mean by mediumship. Some of the observations quoted are not examples of mediumship.

I could probably pick out similar examples to those quoted but I could also pick out examples which would show the exact opposite.

The photo showing Mrs Duncan's alleged 'spirit guide' is nothing of the sort.

To the best of my knowledge her spirit guide, Albert Stewart, was never phoographed.

The difference between him and Helen Duncan was very marked.

She was short, stout and stocky whereas Albert was six feet tall and had been a lumberjack in Australia when on earth.

He always materialised alongside Mrs Duncan and remained there, introducing those who materialised, throughout the seance.

It is very easy to ridicule materialisation if you have never experienced it.

[Cyrus]

I think it's possible for mania to develop over something that could have grains of truth.

Imagine if you will, a suburban mom -- at one point (only once) magically levitates a table in plain daylight, and it really happened.

Suddenly, the whole block is consumed by 'levitation parties'. Fox 10 Action News reports on the scene. People flock from around the country to be healed by the table that levitated.

It doesn't mean something didn't initially happen, but in the pursuit of desperately wanting something to be real, mania could ensue.

Evidence today for the afterlife is best relegated to near death experiences, after death encounters (crisis apparitions, etc), legitimate psychics (forensic psychics), and even certain 'ghostly' phenomena like EVP lends some strong arguments. Meanwhile, the Scole group and other modern-day mediumship phenomena have much better credibility then table-rapping in the 1800s or delusional suspense authors seeing fairies.

[Paul]

I don't think the Scole experiments are a good example. Particularly toward the end. The end of the experiments were even less credible even than sightings of fairies IMHO.

[Michael Prescott]

"I think it's possible for mania to develop over something that could have grains of truth."

Agreed. There almost certainly were real phenomena in some cases, but I suspect that much of the ensuing phenomena consisted of trickery or delusion, augmented by some degree of public hysteria.

"The photo showing Mrs Duncan's alleged 'spirit guide' is nothing of the sort."

Whether it was supposed to be her guide or some other spirit, the point is that this obviously fake puppet, which appears to consist of a mask and a sheet hung on a coat-hanger, was offered as photographic evidence of materialization.

[Cyrus]

Scole isn't without credibility. Some good scientists felt SOMEthing was going on, including even Rupert Sheldrake who attended once. Then there's the issue with photos developing in unopened boxes of film, showing ethereal images. Hard to fake.

[Art]

Probably like pretty much all the Mediumship I've watched on TV - every once in a while there's a big hit followed by 10 to 15 minutes of "filler." John Edward would make some big hit and I'd be blown away and then he'd start talking about people's relationship with their parents which pretty much paralleled everyone else's relationship with their parents.

I guess those old timey mediums felt like like they needed to put on a show. After all they didn't have TV back then; they had to be entertained someway. If you only got 3 to 5 minutes of real material you got to fill up the additional 55 minutes some way.

[Paul]

I didn't say there was no evidence. There wasn't much, if any, evidence of survival at Scole as far as I recall from the 'Scole Report'. I don't recall reading any from Rupert Sheldrake or David Fontana for example.

Attending 'once' hardly qualifies as research (though I do like Rupert Sheldrake's work). The latter stages of Scole degenerated into farce with purported communication from all kinds of bizarre, unverifiable sources.

You made what appeared to be a disparaging reference to Arthur Conan Doyle and his fairies without reference to his many credible contributions to research, then suggest Scole is credible by referring to certain elements you personally find acceptable but don't mention the weird stuff. It looks somewhat inconsistent to me on the face of it.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

Nice list, but what's missing is putting it all in perspective. For example, if I were to read every written account of the time period in question, would I come away saying, "That presents a remarkably consistent picture, but there are definitely a few things amiss," or would I say, "What a chaotic mess"?

What percentage of the mediums of the era still considered big stars of the time would seem fake, partially fake or totally genuine?

And so on.

To me, what lends the greatest credibility to the big picture is that NDEs, which really only started becoming common in the latter half of the 20th century and only talked about much as a phenomenon since the 1970s, are remarkably consistent with each other and the communications of mediums up to that point.

No one coached them on how to have or to interpret their experiences. From a skeptical perspective, they should have experienced random dreams, or, at best, complete wish-fulfillment experiences that reflected their religious expectations. That isn't how things have turned out.

Also, there are cases in the literature that are simply mind-blowing and inexplicable from a skeptical perspective. Recently, someone posted a link of a chess master coming through a medium and playing a very skilled but slightly old-fashioned game. For fraud to occur, another chess master would have had to be working with the medium, who had no chess knowledge at all.

And so on. Cases likes these are legion. The inconsistencies do trouble me, but the phenomena themselves cannot be denied.

Cheers,

Matt

[Art]

what you have to keep in mind with life after death research is that it's different than regular scientific research. If only one piece of it's right that is enough to conclusively prove life after death. Like William James said, it only take one white crow to prove that not all crows are black.

One "real" NDE, or one "real" death bed vision, or one "real" Medium reading is enough. Even if all the other are false, if one of them is real that is enough to prove life after death.

And if that is true then that changes everything. It means our lives here on this earth are but a blink of an eye and this is not the main show and what we have to look forward to is what's really important.

[MJS]

It makes more sense of positive and negative accounts for paranormal phenomena when spiritualism is seen as a mania.

We've had lot's of experience with mania's from the Tulip one of old to the Internet and Real Estate manias today.

Both smoke and fire, not just smoke.

[Zerdini]

Agreed. There almost certainly were real phenomena in some cases, but I suspect that much of the ensuing phenomena consisted of trickery or delusion, augmented by some degree of public hysteria.

Suspicion is not evidence.

The spirit photograph that was offered as evidence of materialisation can be seen here:

http://website.lineone.net/~enlightenment/helen_duncan.htm

The photograph was taken by John Kinsella who was present at the seance and received permission to take the photograph.

[Juan]

Good summary of the various weaknesses of spiritualism. But there is a logical asymmetry between the points and counterpoints, an idea similar to what Art wrote: Yes, there are some inconsistencies, false predictions, fraud, bad science in spiritualism, but it is enough that there are some cases of mediumship that can not be explained by fraud or supersi hypothesis, that is, to establish that there is an afterlife. That is, those who deny the afterlife have to prove that all these cases are fraud or superpsi, but those who claim the afterlife only have to prove that some cases are not fraud or superpsi, but communications with the spirits of the dead.

In particular, we note that the inconsistencies, false predictions, bad science and evolution are probably due to the death people still believe the same thing before he died. Why assume that when we die we go immediately to be enlightened and know if there is reincarnation, knowing the future, knowing science and learn about the evolution of the spirits? No, everything suggests that after death people know and believe more or less the same as before death. This was a conclusion of "Myers" through the mediums. It would be interesting to contact deceased scientists, but science they have done on this plane does not necessarily mean they are good at science in the afterlife.

The spirits control are probably the medium's inconscious, but other communicators certainly are not, as when Hodgson proved Mrs. Piper several tests to rule out the hypothesis that communicators are inconscious of the medium using telepathy.

Spiritualism had its weaknesses, but the real core of the phenomena remains and has evolved along with other phenomena studied lately as the near-death experiences and memories of past lives, which is more convergent evidence for the afterlife.

[Zerdini]

Scole isn't without credibility. Some good scientists felt SOMEthing was going on, including even Rupert Sheldrake who attended once. Then there's the issue with photos developing in unopened boxes of film, showing ethereal images. Hard to fake.

"In the event, meaningful images, which would have required much preparation were they produced normally, appeared on a number of films, but only when a box made by the son of one of the group was used, a box which was subsequently shown by Dr. Gauld to be far from secure. When the films were enclosed in secure envelopes provided by Dr. Wiseman nothing of the sort appeared, and when a secure padlocked box was provided by the investigators the films remained blank." - D.J. West

"The Dragon film images were all taken from an easily available book and displayed clear signs of how they could have been produced by normal means. The same applies to the Ruth film handwriting, which has all the appearance of a photographed hand-traced copy of the reproduction, slightly reduced in size, of the original page corrections in Christie's Catalogue. In view of the normal explanation that could be given for many of the phenomena, one is bound to ask whether a high proportion if not all were wrongly interpreted." - A.D. Cornell

[Douglas]

To Zerdini:

What's yuor assessment of Helen Duncan then, based on what you have unearthed?

I keep hearing conflicting theories, one that that she was genuine but set up by skeptical investigators; two, that she was a total fraud; and three, the most confusing, that she was genuine but augmented her seances with fakery when required.

Actually, the third option is now looking quite likely for a few mediums - it doesnt seem to be the case that all mediums can simply be classed as genuine or fake. The skeptics only need one case of fakery to dismiss a medium's entire career, but Michael has unearthed cases of what appear to be genuine mediums, who have produced genuine phenomena, yet who also engage in trickery on occasion - perhaps when their powers are at a low ebb?

I can see where trickery would come into play as these mediums are expected to perform on demand, which must be a great pressure.

Perhaps Helen Duncan is one of these? That would explan the apparant contradictions in the evidence in her case?

[Matt Rouge]

As I said in the original mania post by Michael, we need to do a bit more sociological research. How many people were into spiritualism, what was the level of fakery versus legitimate phenomenon, etc.?

There was a big aerobics fad in the 1980s. People wore silly-looking leg warmers. I'm sure if you wanted to create an expose, you could find really bad exercises, perhaps some endorsing harmful practices (make it burn!). You could make the fad/mania look pretty stupid, maybe even dangerous.

But was the vast percentage of what people were doing helpful or harmful? It was exercise, so probably helpful.

Of course, there have been fads/manias that were mostly negative.

As far as spiritualism goes, I don't know. It could have been 99% people freaking out in dark rooms with no real phenomena occurring, 99% fake mediums, and only a scattering of real phenomenon. Or it could have been high percentages of people experiencing real phenomena and a high percentage of genuine mediums.

It's a hard thing to know, and a hard thing to investigate.

Cheers,

Matt

[Matt Rouge]

Here are a bunch of photographs of Helen Duncan working with what is obviously cheesecloth:

http://www.harrypricewebsite.co.uk/Seance/Duncan/duncan-plates-index.htm

Debunking of Duncan's sitting:

http://www.harrypricewebsite.co.uk/Seance/Duncan/duncan-spr-review.htm

She may have had some genuine moments, but this is pretty damning

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

There is a tendency for people to believe everything a self proclaimed skeptic says simply because they call themselves a sceptic. If you look at the history of scepticism you will find that this trust is not warrranted.

There have been cases where sceptics have falsified or produced misleading evidence. Because of this, you need to assess the reliability of a sceptic just as you would assess the reliability of a medium. You should use the same high standards of proof for claims of fraud as you do for claims of paranormal phenomena.

The link below jumps to discussion of Harry Price, including his misuse of photographs in his investigation of a medium. If you go back to the top of the web page there are a lot of more examples of other misleading sceptics.

http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection#skeptical_misdirection_price

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

"Here are a bunch of photographs of Helen Duncan working with what is obviously cheesecloth:"

She was searched before the seance and the accusations of cheese cloth depended upon her ability to swallow and regurgitate the cheese cloth.

This is obviously ridiculous because the room would stink of vomit if she regurgitated anything in the seance room.

[Paul]

It's a hard thing to know, and a hard thing to investigate

I think you're right Matt. What we do have is an accumulation of evidence. I suspect that it is probably down to what one makes of it on a personal basis. I do think though that the more evidence one can take a look at, the better.

I don't think simply by looking at the evidence and testimony of others, it is realistic to expect to be able to reach a definite conclusion one way or another. Perhaps an opinion as to 'probability' is the closest one can approach.

I would also suggest it is important to look at the testimony and/or evidence for oneself. By doing this sometimes it is possible to get more from the experience of reading the reports in context, than simply hearing advocates of survival and materialists battling it out. I don't think the adversarial approach is terribly helpful as in this area it seems we often don't end up with a clear view either way on the matter, more of a muddy combination of conflicting arguments and quotations.

[Douglas]

So what do we make of the Helen Duncan seance photo posted earlier? It looks ridiculous.

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

"So what do we make of the Helen Duncan seance photo posted earlier? It looks ridiculous."

Which one? The one zerdini posted or the one mat posted?

If you are referring to the one zerdini posted, I would ask

1) Have you ever been to a materialization seance?

2) What do you expect it to look like? If it looks like a human they will say it is an human impersonating a spirit. If it looks like a "ghost" they will say it looks ridiculous. What are the spirits supposed to do? Take a poll and appear the way people will believe in them or appear the way their technology allows to to appear?

I've also seen some of the supposed "helen duncan is a fraud" pictures. I agree they are ridiculous. That is why I have a hard time believing that all those reputable people who testified at her trial saying she is a genuine medium were fooled by such idiotic nonsense. The claims of fraud do not seem credible to me.

[Michael Prescott]

"She was searched before the seance and the accusations of cheese cloth depended upon her ability to swallow and regurgitate the cheese cloth. This is obviously ridiculous because the room would stink of vomit if she regurgitated anything in the seance room."

Cheesecloth was used by fake mediums because a large quantity can be wadded up into an extremely compact ball. Enough cheesecloth to cover a person like a sheet can be compacted to the size of a large pill. When these fakers regurgitated the cheesecloth, they didn't spew it all over the place. They simply coughed up this pill-sized wad. The noise was usually covered by the singing of hymns by the sitters. They then uncrumpled the cheesecloth, expanding it to its original dimensions. Incidentally, Harry Price reported that Helen Duncan's former housekeeper said she had to wash a slimy cheesecloth sheet after every seance. Price could have been lying about that. But the photos themselves are strong evidence that Duncan was using cheesecloth.

[Zerdini]

Hannen Swaffer also added:

I remembered how I could have killed the regurgitation theory, had the evidence been allowed, by producing a doctor’s certificate that Mrs. Duncan had a normal stomach and so could not regurgitate, and also X-Ray photographs proving that her stomach was normal. These, I held up in vain. These were not “evidence.”

Then, Treasury counsel, jumping at my remark that I had seen every possible test applied to Helen Duncan, asked if we had applied the electrical controls used by Harry Price when Rudi Schneider, the Austrian medium, came to London.

Treasury counsel did not know, but I was present the first time that test was applied, I sat with Sir James Dunn and Lord Charles Hope, in Harry Price’s laboratory, where the so-called electrical test was used - and I said so.

When counsel tried to force the point that this was the kind of test he had been hinting at all the time, I replied that it was not a real test and that, on the occasion I referred to, I was compelled to point out to the psychical researchers how silly it was.

For instance,” I said, “Price’s secretary was walking about the room.”

“Was she covered with phosphorus?” asked counsel.

“No, she was not,” I said.

Then, when the Crown asked whether Mrs. Duncan had ever been tested with a coloured pill - this would prove regurgitation if it occurred - I said “Yes, we tried even that.”

You can scarce believe it, but, only a few months after the King had asked all the nation to pray, Treasury counsel, referring to the fact that séances are often opened with prayer, asked: “Would not prayer make the sitters more receptive?”

“Would prayer make people receptive to the sight of a bus?” I jeered.

“Besides, many people are Agnostics.

Sometimes this court opens with prayer.”

Why, even the House of Commons opens with prayer. Does that make Winston Churchill credulous?

Well, we came back to the cheesecloth.

This, I explained, would be merely a soggy and stained mess if brought up from the stomach.

May I try to swallow the cheesecloth?” I sneered, wishing to show that it could not be done; for it was hard and stiff.

“We will not reduce the Court to the level of an exhibition,” said the Recorder, reprovingly.

“Why have you got it here?” I asked counsel. “We tried to get Harry Price to try to swallow it.

Never have I heard such nonsense - until Price invented this new lunacy of the cheesecloth. It is all a silly invention of his.”

That ended the cheesecloth bunk!

Counsel, coming back to Mrs. Duncan’s nose-bleeding, then asked, “Did you examine her nose?”

“I looked at it,” I said. “What else does one do but look at a nose which is bleeding? Besides, I am a trained observer. My word is taken when I report other things.”

“Aren’t you a Spiritualist with fixed opinions?” said counsel, suggesting, 1 suppose, I would defend any psychic fraud.

Yes,” I replied. “My opinions are fixed because they are based on evidence which is incontrovertible.”

“When you were a dramatic critic,” pressed counsel, “did other critics agree with you?”

“Criticism is not a matter of fact,” I retorted, “but a matter of opinion.’’

Then counsel sat down, looking tired. And I stamped out of the court.

Well, having been refused a chance to demonstrate her powers in court, Mrs. Duncan was sent to prison for nine months; the Court of Appeal refused to reverse the judgment; and then the Attorney-General denied us leave to take the case to the House of Lords, saying, “ it is not a matter of sufficient public importance.”

[Douglas]

That's all very well Zerdini, but that doesnt answer the question of the very dodgy photo (I mean the first one posted earlier) which is obviously a mask, not a very good one at that, draped in a cloth.

It's next to Helen Duncan?

Zerdini, that's a photo of Helen Duncan with something obviously fake.

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

"But the photos themselves are strong evidence that Duncan was using cheesecloth."

Are these photos presented by Price? There is good evidence that Price was not reliable.

What is known the provenance of the photos? Who can confirm Price's assertions that they depict what he claims they depict?

I'm not just pissing back, I've been wondering about this for a while. If you have information about it I would really like to know.

Thanks,

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

"that's a photo of Helen Duncan with something obviously fake."

Yes, it is obviously fake. So how could anyone be fooled by it?

Maybe the photo is a fake and those highly reputable people who testified for Helen observed something different.

[Zerdini]

Twice I have tried to reply to your earlier post Douglas but it hasn't been printed on here.

Regarding the photo you mention may I ask who took the photo and where and when it was taken. I agree it looks faked which is why I ask who took it and under what circumstances.

It certainlt bears no reseblance to the one taken by John Kinsella.

[Michael Prescott]

There's no need for a second stomach, or any unusual qualities of the stomach, in order to regurgitate a compact wad of cheesecloth. Anyone can regurgitate by sticking a finger down the throat.

In some of the photos taken by Price, the medium's face is visible. She certainly resembles Helen Duncan. As far as I know, Duncan never asserted that the photos (which were published in her lifetime) were fake. It is known that she worked with Price and was photographed and tested by him.

Regarding comments that don't show up, TypePad is quirky. Some of my comments fail to appear, or appear and then vanish. It's annoying.

[Michael Prescott]

The John Kinsella photo is clearly different from the puppet photos. I would guess (though admittedly I can't prove) that the figure in Kinsella's photo is an actor in a simple costume. This is why it looks more real than the puppet. Duncan's defenders no doubt would say that security precautions made it impossible for an accomplice to enter (or hide in) the room. But the history of materialization mediumship is rife with examples of clever fakers who found a way around most precautions.

One reason I would suspect that so much of these phenomena were (and are) not genuine is that experienced investigators had a hard time finding anyone who was legitimate. The team who studied Palladino in 1908 had debunked more than 100 materialization and physical mediums before they started on her. If their record is any guide, the ratio of fakes to genuine mediums (in the physical or materialization area, at least) is roughly 100:1.

The Society for Psychical Research discovered so much fakery in physical mediumship that they made it a formal policy not to bother investigating any further cases. They did make rare exceptions, for instance with Palladino herself.

It seems to me that this talent, though real, is exceedingly rare and frequently faked by opportunistic con artists. Lamar Keene's book The Psychic Mafia, which is online, presents the first-person story of one such faker and his encounters with many others.

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

" Incidentally, Harry Price reported that Helen Duncan's former housekeeper said she had to wash a slimy cheesecloth sheet after every seance. "

I bet she was not quoted as saying they reeked of vomit. If she was Price would have to explain why they didn't smell it in the seance room.

So why didn't they reek of vomit?

Skeptics will believe anything no matter how ridiculous as long as it lets them maintain their belief in materialism. Even an obvious fabrication (groan) like this.

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

"Enough cheesecloth to cover a person like a sheet can be compacted to the size of a large pill.

Do you know for a fact that such an amount of cheese cloth can really be compressed, even when wet? Or, are you taking the skeptics at their word?

If I remember correctly you wrote an article sceptical of "flim-flam man". Have you investigated these sceptics just as carefully?

When these fakers regurgitated the cheesecloth, they didn't spew it all over the place. They simply coughed up this pill-sized wad.

Which fakers? Is this supposition or proven ability and reliably demonstrated in front of reputable witnesses.

I'm sceptical of sceptics. I think you would agree there is good reason to be.

At her trial many reputable people testified on Helen's behalf. There is presumably a court transcript of who said what.

I'd like to see the sceptics to provide the same level of detail in their evidence. Who are these people and what evidence did they give of their assertions? Did someone wad up a cheese cloth in court to prove it could be reduced to the size of a pill. Did anyone regurgitate it by coughing with out the smell of vomit filling the room?

[Art]

I wonder if the people back in the heyday of spiritualism and Mediums expected "spirit controls?" I'm going to be honest here and come right out and say I think they were made up. They were part of the show. Neither John Edward or George Anderson work with spirit controls. They just come out and say stuff they are feeling - listening to their own thoughts. It's all rather straight forward. But back in the early days of spiritualism it was almost like it was expected so the Mediums would make up some far out being that was supposedly feeding them information.

I think these Mediums just did what was expected of them. Some of what they got was real and the rest was filler. People were hungry to be entertained. In the early days there was no radio or TV so people did other things to entertain themselves. If all you got was a few minutes of information you had to fill up the rest of the time with a good show.

[RabbitDawg]

If I had to paint a picture of the difference between a true skeptic and a pseudo-skeptic, I would point to James Randi as an example of the pseudo type, and Michael Prescott as an example of healthy, true skepticism.
It's one of the reasons we like your blog, Michael. Keep up the good work.

[Paul]

John Edward and George Anderson practice clairvoyance (allegedly). The other mediums referred to are using a completely different method. It may be that some of the controls were a subconscious mechanism for communicating however that couldn't apply to cases where a control identified themselves to family members, especially those unknown to the medium.

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

The cheese cloth was "coughed up"?

That is an interesting choice of words. I never heard that she was accused of storing the cheese cloth in her lungs. The lungs would be the source of the ejecting force from in a cough. That phrase seems intended to distract from the fact that the alleged slimy cheese cloth that was to have been vomited up would be saturated in gastric juices.

If the stomach is perforated and gastric juices flow into the body cavity that is fatal if untreated. A person would digest himself from the inside out.

I would like to know how Helen can drape herself in cheese cloth soaked in gastric juices and not suffer chemical burns or fill the room with the stink of vomit?

Thanks,

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

It's not a case of Helen's word against Price's. You don't have to take her word for anything and you shouldn't take Price's since he has been shown not to be trust worthy. When her seance was raided, they found no incriminating evidence. You have only the word of the accuser versus the words of many reputable people who testified to the genuineness of her mediumship at her trial. Those people were not fooled by magic tricks, according to David Fontana, Will Goldston, a stage magician, spoke up for Helen Duncan.

[Michael Prescott]

"The visit of the Duncans to the National Laboratory had a curious sequel. A Miss Mary McGinlay called on us in February 1932 and told us she had accompanied Mrs. Duncan to London and had acted as maid to her. She said she had some important information for us. She was interviewed by our Council, and her statements were legally drawn up in the form of a Statutory Declaration. On February 22nd, 1932, she attended before a Commissioner for Oaths and made the declaration.

"Miss McGinlay's story is an amazing one, and sheds some light on our experiments. She states that she purchased pieces of butter-muslin for Mrs. Duncan and that these pieces 'appear to be identical' with those which I photographed at the séances. She recognised tears in the fabric as being the same.

"She also declared on oath that after a séance 'Mrs. Duncan used to get me to wash out a length of this muslin. The muslin had a rotten smell. It put me in mind of the smell of urine.... She would give it to me just as she had used it, and then it would be much stained and slimy.'

"On the night of the séance when Mr. Duncan refused to be searched at the National Laboratory, Miss McGinlay met him in the road near the house where they were staying. Mr. Duncan took a roll of butter-muslin out of his pocket and said that Mrs. Duncan had passed it to him in the street when they had been alone for a few minutes after she had dashed out of the séance-room at the National Laboratory of Psychical Research. He said that the people at the Laboratory had asked him to be searched and that he had made the excuse that his underclothes were very old, etc.

"Miss McGinlay concludes: 'During the latter period of my stay with Mrs. Duncan in London, I formed the opinion that the lengths of cheese-cloth which I had sometimes washed for Mrs. Duncan had been swallowed by her. The conclusion was forced upon me that the cheese-cloth was swallowed by her and then brought up again during a séance.'"

http://www.harrypricewebsite.co.uk/Seance/Duncan/leaves-duncan.htm

In the same article, note that some fake ectoplasm produced by Duncan for chemical analysis (a bit of toilet paper soaked in egg white) must have been regurgitated by the medium - proving (says Price) that Duncan "could secrete objects in her internal economy and produce them at will."

The photos, the maid's testimony, the egg-white ectoplasm, and the subsequent exposure of one materialized spirit ("Peggy") as "a woman's stockinette undervest" (same link) are more than enough to discredit Duncan, IMO.

[Zerdini]

Hannen Swaffer, the famous journalist wrote:

The fact that Helen Duncan is a fat Scotswoman of working-class origin and with a desire to earn more money as a medium than we thought wise for her, does not affect the issue. She had demonstrated to countless numbers of people all over the land that it was possible for the spirits of the dead to materialise, that they need not rely on so-called “resurrection” because of an unproved, and contradictory, story of how Jesus returned from the grave, but that they could test it for themselves.
No fewer than 300 of these were prepared to give evidence at the Old Bailey trial.

Actually, 40 of them did so. They included people belonging to all the Services, and various learned professions - a medical officer, a lawyer, one of the best-known Scottish journalists, a sanitary inspector, an electrical draughtsman, and a Church of England clergyman.

For three days, these described how full materialisations of relatives and friends had taken place at Helen Duncan séances, and that they were satisfied about the genuineness of her powers.

Yet, time after time, Treasury counsel held up the cheesecloth or butter-muslin, as some called it, and said, “Wasn’t it like this?

Then I arrived in the witness-box. You must realise that I had nothing to gain, but, although one of the most famous journalists in the country, I was risking obloquy and scorn. Yet Truth is Truth, and you have to stand for it.

“You are also, I believe, a dramatic critic,” said C. E. Loseby, counsel for the defence.
“I was, unfortunately,” I replied.
“Unfortunate for whom?” asked the Recorder.
“For me, my Lord,” I said. “I had to sit through it.”

I did not know until I turned him up in “Who’s Who” that he had once been a playwright of sorts, part author of “Rebel Maid.” You can guess what authors of humorous musical plays think of me!
Well, I told the Court that for over 20 years I had investigated psychic phenomena of every kind and type, and in many countries, and that the purpose of my investigation was: “It is my duty to tell people the truth about the survival of their beloved dead.” Then, saying how I had sat perhaps half a dozen times with Mrs. Duncan under test conditions, I explained to legal high-ups who thought ectoplasm was a piece of cheesecloth that it was exuded from mediums through the mucous membranes, the solar plexus, the ears and the nostrils, that it appeared to be a living substance, that I had seen it perhaps 50 times and that, in the case of Helen Duncan, it resembled “living snow.”

“When was the last time?” the Recorder asked.
“Since this case was sent for trial,” I replied.

The point of this was that, between Portsmouth and the Old Bailey, we had made a rigid test of Helen Duncan’s powers and that the results were so extraordinary that C. E. Loseby, who was present, said at the end, “I am so impressed that I will tell the Court I am willing to allow the medium to demonstrate her powers in open court, and in broad daylight.”

Yet the Recorder decided that all evidence about this test must be ruled out “since it would be under a cloud.”

[Zerdini]

Before this test sitting, two women took Mrs. Duncan into a room, stripped her stark naked, dressed her only in a loose black garment - the reason for this was that the ectoplasm was white - and then brought her, in our sight, into the séance room. There she went into a trance in a red light in which we could see everything that happened.
Albert, her guide, began: “Something has been said about a sheet. I will show it to you.” Immediately we saw a large mass of ectoplasm, probably eight feet long and six feet wide. This was what the police had called a sheet!

Then, to prove the genuineness of the ectoplasm, the medium moved half across the room, the living substance becoming a sort of rope which lengthened as she moved further away.

Yet all this was ruled out, as, later, was every scrap of evidence sworn to by witnesses who had sat with Mrs. Duncan all over the country. Nor was she allowed to give a test in court. “That would be in the nature of a trial by ordeal,” said the Recorder.

Surely if a woman who is accused of “a pretence at conjuring up the spirits of dead persons” offers to produce them in open court - well, what more can she do? But even if she did so, she would still be guilty under the law of Britain.

“Could the ectoplasm be mistaken for butter-muslin?” Loseby asked me.

“Anyone who described it as butter-muslin would be a child,” I replied. “Besides, under red light, butter- muslin would turn yellow or pink. How could a red light make that kind of material take on a living whiteness?

Then I had to explain to a Recorder ignorant of ectoplasm, how it reacted to light, how the actinic qualities of light which retard photographic processes also affect ectoplasm. More, I had to tell how, the first time I sat with Mrs. Duncan, someone foolishly shone a light on the medium with the result that the séance had to be stopped and that then we discovered the medium was bleeding furiously at the nose.

I also produced a document signed by four magicians after I had taken them along to test Mrs. Duncan. They had tied her up with 40 yards of sash-cord, they said in their agreed statement, handcuffed her, and tied her two thumbs so close together with thick thread that it cut into the flesh. Although it had taken eight minutes for Will Goldston, a professional magician, to tie up the medium, her guide freed her from the cord, the thread and the handcuffs in three minutes.

As a dramatic critic I ridiculed, in the witness-box, the idea that Mrs. Duncan could impersonate Albert, her guide.
Yet, in his summing-up, the only thing said by the Recorder about my evidence was: “All that Mr Swaffer said was to contradict some of the others, not altogether to be wondered at.”

I did not contradict any of the others, for I was talking of séances at which they had not been present, and they were talking of sittings which I had not attended.

Besides, the Recorder seemed to have forgotten that I so smashed the case for the cheesecloth theory that never again, after I left the box, was it held up or referred to.

[Michael Prescott]

But for all that confident testimony, which certainly does read convincingly, we're still left with the photos of cheesecloth, safety pins, and masks. If the photos had never been taken, the case for Duncan would be much stronger. It makes me wonder if, say, D.D. Home would still have such a high reputation if photos had been taken of his seances.

[Matt Rouge]

I don't know what to think.

All of the photos of Duncan look prima facie fake. Just simply absurd on the surface with no real debate possible.

Did she also produce "real ectoplasm"? I have no idea.

It reminds me a lot of our debate on David Thompson. Some of the phenomena in his seances seem very hard to fake, while others (such as the horrible voices of the spirits he "materializes") seem prima facie fake and unacceptable.

jshgfcre98ijyds,

I don't buy that we just can't trust Price at all. If he turns up evidence that Duncan was being fraudulent at a particular point in time, then we have to address that evidence. Simply labeling him a "skeptic" does not invalidate everything he ever did.

Cheers,

Matt

[Zerdini]

Helen Duncan by Maurice Barbanell

I shall always contend that my friend, Helen Duncan, the materialisation medium, was the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. When, during the war, she was charged at the Old Bailey under the archaic Witchcraft Act of 1735, some newspapers called it “The trial of the century.” Obviously an Act which became law more than a century before Spiritualism began was not intended to apply to modern mediums.

Her conviction, and subsequent imprisonment, led Spiritualists to campaign, successfully, for the repeal of this Act, which, by being resurrected, implied that all séances were illegal, and thus jeopardised our religious freedom. In his war memoirs, Sir Winston Churchill has recorded that he sent a note to the Home Secretary complaining of the fact that in a time of urgency and peril so much time and money should be wasted on a “witchcraft” trial.

Counsel’s defence that Mrs Duncan was a genuine medium, and his offer to demonstrate her powers of materialisation within the precincts of the court, were not regarded as legally admissible.

The “offence” under the Witchcraft Act was pretending that she could conjure up spirits. Whether she was genuine or not was beside the point so far as this Act was concerned. Counsel for the defence was satisfied of her ability to demonstrate her materialisation powers at the trial, for she gave us evidence just before it opened that she was capable of doing so. Despite the strain of her ordeal, she willingly offered us an experimental séance which was remarkable in its results. Yards and yards of ectoplasm streamed from her, and billowed and flowed in swirling masses until even experienced Spiritualists like myself gazed with astonishment at the spectacle.

With Helen Duncan I have been privileged to see the growth of a materialisation inside the cabinet. Outside, I have observed the ectoplasmic forms as they gradually dwindled in size until they resembled small globes of light, and then finally disappeared as if sinking through the floor.

Inside the cabinet, I have watched ectoplasm exude from the medium’s nostrils, mouth and ears in waving billows of luminosity that gradually solidified into the six-foot figure of her guide.

Harry Price, a researcher who thrived on publicity, propounded the extraordinary theory that, instead of being a genuine materialisation medium, Helen Duncan swallowed yards of cheesecloth which she later regurgitated. To show how nonsensical this theory was, Mrs Duncan gladly submitted herself to X-ray
examination. Price’s “explanation” was that she had a secondary stomach, like a cow.

The X-ray examination proved that both her stomach and her eosophagus were normal.

Counsel for the defence at the Old Bailey tried to introduce the X-ray photographs as evidence, but these too were legally inadmissible.

More than once at Helen Duncan’s séances, I was invited to handle some of the ectoplasm immediately after it had been produced. It was always bone-dry, and had a curious stiff “feel”, proving that it could not have been regurgitated.

I conducted an experiment that was conclusive in its result. At my suggestion, Helen Duncan, and every sitter at one séance, swallowed tablets of methylene blue. These had the effect of dying into a bluish colour the contents of all our stomachs. Yet when the materialisations appeared, they were their usual white colour.

Having given these examples of materialisation, I should like, in contrast, to furnish one that is exactly
opposite - dematerialisation.

Helen Duncan had a psychic gift which enabled her to read written questions placed in sealed envelopes, and to supply the answers. I tested this ability many times.

Once I wrote a question concerning a woman with a most unusual hyphenated name, Bayley-Worthington. Naturally, I made sure that the medium did not see what I wrote, but she was able to repeat my question, including this uncommon name, and to give me a reply.

I happened to mention this phenomenon to Estelle Roberts, who, never having seen it demonstrated, expressed the desire to participate in such a séance. I arranged a meeting between the two mediums. I handed Estelle Roberts a sheet of paper on which she wrote a question which nobody else could see. She folded the paper and placed it in an envelope. This was sealed by her and handed to Helen Duncan.

Before attempting to “read” the question, Mrs Duncan followed her usual procedure. Slowly she rubbed the sealed envelope on her temple, and then at the base of her spine. She said it was always necessary to do that before she could repeat the wording on the folded paper. Then slowly she exclaimed: “When—will—I---hear---from—my—…

Here, a puzzled expression came over Mrs Duncan’s face. “It’s gone!” she announced.

Estelle Roberts commented: “That is very good.

You have read my question, all except the last two words.” Still looking puzzled, Helen Duncan repeated: “It’s gone!”

Estelle Roberts assured Mrs Duncan that she was accurate as far as she had gone and, to confirm her statement, opened the envelope with the intention of showing the question she had written. Then we were all surprised, for the paper was gone! The envelope was empty. And the paper has never reappeared.

Estelle Roberts told me that she understood the significance of this strange happening. She had asked a question concerning someone who had passed on, and recalled that Red Cloud had said she should not seek information concerning this individual until a certain time had elapsed, and that had not yet occurred.

Mrs Duncan’s power of materialisation had another curious facet, in which a slate pencil would write without any seeming visible means of support. This was a phenomenon she never took seriously, and always had to be cajoled into demonstrating it.

The requirements were two slates, such as school children use, and a pencil. First I washed the slates clean and wrote a question with a pencil, making sure that the medium could not see what I was doing. Then I put the pencil horizontally between the two slates and tied them round with string.
Helen Duncan placed them beneath a table. She held one hand below the slates to keep them wedged and to prevent them falling.

I heard the pencil make its usual scratching sound as an answer to my question was written. When the reply was completed, three distinct taps were heard coming from beneath the table. This was the signal for Mrs Duncan to produce the slates. When I opened them, there was a spirit answer written below my
question.

As for Harry Price you will have to make up your own mind - there is plenty on the web. I know that Barbanell often used to tease Price by asking if he really believed in a talking mongoose!

[sbu]

Michael, Thanks for providing such an excellent summary of the problems with mediumsship.

Having read the comments in this discussion it seems that the core difference between a believer and a sceptic is the believer's ability to make up any kind of excuse for these serious problems with mediumsship.

However frequently the discussion about believers and sceptics make it sounds like everybody is categorised into two different camps either you are a sceptic or a believer. But in reality the spectrum of believers and sceptics are really broad. There are "sceptical believers" and "open minded sceptics" and then there are the extremists on each side. Following the discussions in this blog I'm often intrigued by the differences in evaluation of the available evidence. Unfortunately this proves the great lack of objectivsm in "afterlife research". Sometimes it's difficult for me to see the difference from a traditional religion?

[Douglas]

The information that Zerdini posts raises an interesting possibility.

He does not address the question of the obviously fake materialisation photo mentioned earlier, not the photos of 'ectoplasm' that clearly show the warp and weft of cloth!

Instead he provides us with additional evidence which does suggest the Helen Duncan was genuine.

What do we make of this?

I think this points to what we discussed earlier: With many mediums, they are not simply genuine or fake. The reality seems to be that many mediums were capable of producing genuine phenomena, but they were not averse to faking phenomena when the need arose - I spreculate this happened on occasion when their mediumistic powers were at a low ebb.

We know from psychic phenomena in general that it is very hard to produce on demand. The pressure on mediums, who have regular schedules, must be great and this quite possibly leads them to fakery on occasion.

If the above scenario is true then this makes it even more difficult for us to evaluate mediums of the past with any degree of confidence, and we should also consider the above possibility for present day mediums as well. Your Sylvia Browns, Van Praags etc. Skeptics like to discovery one case of fakery and declare that the medium is a fraud. But there is also the possibility that they CAN produce genuine phenomena on occasion too - the 'on occasion' part being the problematic bit.

This explanation has been suggested for Uri Gellar, who has convinced serious researchers with his powers in the past, and indeed some studies to appear to show that he has/had some genuine abilities, but he does appear to have relied on trickery on occasion too, for the reason given above, that it is difficult to produce psychic phenomena on demand.

Eventially his faked efforts caught up with him and he is now largely discredited. I believe the same applies to Helen Duncan.

[Robert Perry]

And while we're on this subject, is anyone troubled by NDErs being given information, while on the other side, that is patently false? I recently watched a lengthy NDE account from Nanci Danison in which it was revealed to her that the first race of humans, which evolved from lower life forms, was wiped out in the same extinction that killed off the dinosaurs. Nanci says that her studies on earth were like reading comic books compared to the real learning she received on the other side. But in the "Jurassic humans" case, at least, the comic book history was clearly what she got during her NDE.

[sbu]

The reality seems to be that many mediums were capable of producing genuine phenomena, but they were not averse to faking phenomena when the need arose

Douglas, you strike me as one who is willing to accept whatever excuse it takes to get your believes confirmed. From this position you don't even need to bother looking at the evidence - even if Helen Duncan told you face to face that she was a fake you wouldn't change your position. Try to reread what MP wrote about Arthur Conan Doyle.

And is it really a common sense argument that someone would learn the revolting art of regurgitating ugly substances on demand when you possess a gift that will earn you the nobel prize any day?

This explanation has been suggested for Uri Gellar, who has convinced serious researchers with his powers in the past

Uri Gellar has today admitted that he doesn't possess any psychic abilities. Now I expect you will turn this into "He admitted this because he want to be free of accusations from sceptics."

[Matt Rouge]

Robert,

We had a huge debate on here a few months back about Nanci Danison. Opinion was sharply divided on the nature and validity of her revelations.

Cheers,

Matt

[Douglas]

SBU, no I reject this. I actually HAVE looked at the evidence. I could accuse you of doing the same: do you not accept the evidence produced by Zerdini?

Of course you don't, because it doesnt fit with your pre-existing beliefs about the Duncan case. You would rather dismiss it.

Therein lies the problem. I am accepting the evidence for genuine ability and the evidence for fakery and I feel that the most likely explanation of the totality of evidence is that we have a case of someone displaying some genuine abilities as well as utilising fakery on occasion. The evidence actually suggests that the two assertions are NOT mutually opposed as you appear to suggest.

Please see MP's earlier blog on the accounts of researchers who have witnessed genuine mediums utilising fakey DURING A GENUINE SEANCE to learn more about why these two activities are NOT mutually exlusive.

[Douglas]

PS regarding Geller - i'm no great fan of Geller but actually your claim that he says he doesnt have any powers is incorrect.

According to geller himself,the original quote was taken out of context and misrepresented what he was actually saying during a german tv show. He was actually talking about how he describes himself today in terms of a performer, not that he doesnt have genuine powers.

He has since made a joke of this out of context quote and now repeats this ironically, most recently while winking to a tv camera!

Personally I think he's an asshole but that's beside the point.

Do you not undertand irony?

[sbu]

I could accuse you of doing the same: do you not accept the evidence produced by Zerdini?

Not true. I read Zerdini's comments with great interest. His point is to my understanding not to defend mediums who sometimes happens to also be among the great frauds taking advantage of hopeful and grieving peoples beliefs. Rather he points out that the sceptical evidence could be fraudulent created by people who wants to discredit Helen Duncan for whatever reason.

This idea that mediums are both genuine and fake at the same time is just a silly excuse for those who don't want to face the truth. Eusapia Palladino is an interesting exception though who have some good evidence for being real.

[XXII]

Michael, in hindsight, how do you view this entry in the blog?

[XXII]

And of course I didn't link you to it...

Here it is, sorry:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/01/beyond_belief.html

[Michael Prescott]

XXII, Tom Harrison's book is more convincing to me than accounts of Helen Duncan. For one thing, Mrs. Harrison wasn't making money or seeking publicity - quite the opposite; she insisted on anonymity. She was suffering from terminal cancer and probably lacked the strength for an elaborate ruse that continued for years. It seems impossible that she could have had a secret accomplice. That said, I wouldn't claim that Harrison's book is proof of anything. The sittings were never investigated in any scientific fashion.

[Robert Perry]

Matt, thank you, I must have missed that discussion. I'll do a search and check it out.

[Zerdini]

Eusapia Palladino explains to a reporter, when asked if she has ever been caught cheating, "Many times I have been told so. You see, it is like this. Some people are at a table who expect tricks-- in fact, they want them. I am in a trance. Nothing happens. They get impatient. They think of the tricks-- nothing but tricks. They put their minds on the tricks, and I-- and I automatically respond. But it is not often. They merely will me to do them. That is all."
From: Bowers, Edwin F. Spiritualism's Challenge. New York: National Library Press, 1936. See Chapter 14, "Honest and Dishonest Mediums,"

[Matt Rouge]

I think Douglas is practicing good epistemology here.

Few things in life are black and white, though people love to take a shade of gray and push it in one direction or the other. In this thread, I think we've seen people try to play "teams" quite a bit. But being on a team doesn't get you to the truth--only the evidence does.

I'm willing to believe that Duncan had genuine abilities. I'd have to go back and read the accounts. The account of the sailor materializing and telling people of a ship that had sunk before anyone outside the government knew about it is impressive. But I'd need to read more to get the big picture.

I don't need to study more in order to know that she did some very fake stuff as well. The pictures we've been talking about here are disgraceful. Unless someone can show me that the photos are fakes and it's not Duncan (which I have not seen anywhere online), then I have to conclude that she faked ectoplasm and spirits some of the time.

Zerdini, can you not agree that these photos are highly questionable?

sbu,

You wrote, "Douglas, you strike me as one who is willing to accept whatever excuse it takes to get your believes confirmed."

I like this blog because people argue in a cool way here. I would say the above kind of statement is uncool. Ad hominem isn't just unpleasant; it's also a logical fallacy.

My fear is that you don't really believe in anything paranormal and you simply say you do to get enough credibility to participate here, where you end up arguing like a hard-core, angry skeptic. I am not saying that to be inflammatory. It is my genuine concern. Again, I don't wish to add to the conflict, but I find your tone too harsh much of the time.

In any case, there is always conflict, even in Eden.

Cheers,

Matt

[Zerdini]

Zerdini, can you not agree that these photos are highly questionable?

In an earlier post I wrote: "Regarding the photo you mention may I ask who took the photo and where and when it was taken. I agree it looks faked which is why I ask who took it and under what circumstances."

[Matt Rouge]

Zerdini,

That's a fine response for argument's sake, but I'm asking you what you *really think.* And not just the one photograph but the others of Duncan with a very cloth-like substance hanging from her.

Do you believe that these photos are not legitimate or likely not legitimate? Surely you have some sort of internal opinion at this point.

The links I provided describe the circumstances in which the photos were taken.

Cheers,

Matt

[Zerdini]

I have read it all very carefully, Matt, in case I missed anything which I originally read a long time ago.

The author wrote: “This website (which publishes the photographs) has no official views and in putting these pages together I have tried to avoid siding with either Price or his detractors where possible - Harry Price was a controversial figure during his lifetime & this controversy continues to the present day. Here you will find the facts about his life and times. Any opinions where expressed are those of the particular authors or commentators in question including myself.”

I have read the SPR Report and it seems to be full of inconsistencies. Apparently the photographs were taken by Harry Price in his laboratory. Surely he would have seen Mrs Duncan faking the so-called ectoplasm?

Dr Woolley says: “To sum up, however, the photographs speak for themselves and they teach us at least two things. First that the taking of flashlight photographs of alleged mediumistic phenomena may be of the greatest value in detecting fraud and so, by corollary, of establishing what is genuine, and second that the physical examination of a medium cannot be considered complete unless we are able to know that nothing is concealed in the stomach or oesophagus. Mr Price has not so far suggested any practicable technique for such a control and neither can I.”

I have said before on other forums that the taking of a photograph in a seance only captures a moment in time. The phenomena might be in a state of flux.

What is really needed is a film of the phenomena as it happens so an accurate opinion or judgement can be formed.

Is this likely to happen?

I have grave doubts.

The alternative is to witness it for oneself which is what I have done during the last fifty-odd years,

[Michael Prescott]

"The alternative is to witness it for oneself which is what I have done during the last fifty-odd years"

You've made this point very often, Zerdini, and of course there's merit to it. OTOH, a case can be made that those who participate in the experiments sometimes lose their perspective, as William Crookes seems too have done with Florence Cook.

I've commented before about the Noah's Ark Society's investigation of Colin Fry in the early 1990s, which I believe you (Zerdini) were part of. As is well known, the lights in the seance room came on unexpectedly, and Fry, who was supposed to be strapped to a chair with plastic handcuffs, was found standing by the seance table, holding a trumpet in midair to create the illusion that it was levitating. His explanation was that a mischievous spirit had taken possession of his body and forced him to fake the levitation effect. The Society essentially accepted this explanation and voiced its confidence in Fry's mediumship. The original Psychic News article is reproduced here (scroll halfway down page):

http://tinyurl.com/8xms3nc

Personally, I would not have accepted Fry's story, especially since the fake medium M. Lamar Keene had already written (in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia) that the standard "out" for a medium who's caught cheating is to blame it on the spirits. I can't help but think that the people who participated in the Fry study were committed to the idea that they had witnessed genuine phenomena on prior occasions and simply were unwilling to let go of this conviction or to admit that Fry had been putting one over on them.

So, IMO, witnessing the phenomena at first hand is a double-edged sword. It does give you a direct, personal experience than armchair studies can't provide. But it also may result in an emotional commitment that's not always compatible with objectivity. The much-despised armchair investigator may actually have a leg up on the active researcher in this regard, though admittedly not in other respects.

That's why I'm not sure that the courtroom testimony of Helen Duncan's supporters is worth very much. These people, who believed that Helen had reunited them with their loved ones, had a strong emotional commitment to the reality of her seances. Moreover, they had publicly endorsed her, and felt they would look foolish if she were discredited. Does this mean they were mistaken in what they remembered seeing? Not necessarily - but I'd put more trust in the photos....

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

"These people, who believed that Helen had reunited them with their loved ones, had a strong emotional commitment to the reality of her seances. Moreover, they had publicly endorsed her, and felt they would look foolish if she were discredited. "

Then the testimony of professional debunkers is untrustworthy and unreliable because they have the same psychologial motivation plus the additional financial incentives to fool themselves and to commit fraud.

[Michael Prescott]

That's true, jsh. It cuts both ways. Eyewitness testimony of any kind can be a treacherous area.

[Douglas]

The issue of the professional debunkers should be brought up here too.

We've been talking abotu the mania of the spiritualist movement, but appended to this was the professional debunking movement which grew alongside it.

The professional debunkers were heavily financially and emotionally commited to debunking early mediums - their livlihoods and fame depended on it. The early debnunking movement could also be termed a mania of sorts in the way that losts of so called skeptics jumped on the bandwagon in order to earn some cash and fame.

Could we really put it past some of these individuals to use fakery on occasion too? After all, if mediums happened to use fakery on occasion, why not the skeptics?

Fakery seems to have been the order of the day for everyone at that time.

[sbu]

Could we really put it past some of these individuals to use fakery on occasion too? After all, if mediums happened to use fakery on occasion, why not the skeptics?

While the (fake) mediums have a clear often financial motivation for cheating it's harder to see why an often scientific minded 'debunker' should be motivated to use fakery. I would personally really love to be proved wrong and so I believe would 99% of every other sceptics.

[Zerdini]

I've commented before about the Noah's Ark Society's investigation of Colin Fry in the early 1990s, which I believe you (Zerdini) were part of. As is well known, the lights in the seance room came on unexpectedly, and Fry, who was supposed to be strapped to a chair with plastic handcuffs, was found standing by the seance table, holding a trumpet in midair to create the illusion that it was levitating. His explanation was that a mischievous spirit had taken possession of his body and forced him to fake the levitation effect. The Society essentially accepted this explanation and voiced its confidence in Fry's mediumship.

Indeed you have, Michael, as have others who weren't there.

I was.

I was in charge of the light switch which was boxed up to prevent the light coming on accidentally.

First of all there wasn't a seance table in the room. Fry was restrained by a number of cable ties which it is impossible to undo. Many have tried and all have failed.

The light came on very slowly as if by a dimmer switch which surprised me as it was still boxed up.

It is true that he was seen holding a plastic megaphone which was dropped as he fell on the floor. I helped to carry him upstairs where he promptly fell asleep for over an hour.

We held a later seance at which the guides explained that an undeveloped entity had managed to gain control and had released him from the cable ties.

We had the severed cable ties examined by scientists who were unable to explain how they were severed. The full report was posted in "Psychic News" at the time and also in the "Ark Review.

What is not generally realised that a similar incident happened to Stainton Moses in the late nineteenth century.

On that occasion the guides said: "We only turned away for a moment and they were in" referring to undeveloped spirits.

The suggestion that "these people, who believed that Helen had reunited them with their loved ones, had a strong emotional commitment to the reality of her seances" is patently absurd. I read all the testimonies given at her trial from people from all walks of life and they were entirely compatible with my own experiences.

Human testimony constantly contradicts theory.

Lamar Keene was an admitted charlatan - he wasn't a medium.

William Roy, who I've written about before was also an admitted fraud.

Some years ago I was at a meeting of psychical researchers, Spiritualists and sceptics to discuss survival.

I put a question to the panel: "What would you regard as cast-iron proof of survival?"

One said that if his mother materialised twelve times in front of him he still would not believe because it was impossible!

It was then that I realised the truth of the biblical statement "neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

[Douglas]

Hi Zerdini,

Judging from what you have related in your experience, I now feel pretty depressed over the possibility of getting objective evidence to satisfy the general public. Everything is stacked against us.

[Michael Prescott]

"What is not generally realised that a similar incident happened to Stainton Moses in the late nineteenth century."

Then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that Stainton Moses was engaging in fraud, at least in that instance?

Zerdini, if catching the medium out of his chair holding the "levitating" megaphone in his hand isn't enough to convict him of cheating, then what is?

Is there any behavior on the part of the medium that would discredit him in your eyes? In your years of investigating, did you debunk any mediums? If so, how?

When Lamar Keene confessed to the directors of his Spiritualist church that he was a total fraud, they refused to believe him. They knew he was genuine because they had seen him do such amazing things. His own testimony wasn't enough to convince them that they had been fooled.

Yes, skeptics can be equally truculent. But if some skeptics would not believe even if their own mother materialized before them, it's also true that some believers would not doubt even if the medium confessed his fakery to them face to face.

[Paul]

Zerdini, if catching the medium out of his chair holding the "levitating" megaphone in his hand isn't enough to convict him of cheating, then what is? I think the point here is that, if one accepts the explanation, the medium was not controlling the action and therefore was not cheating.

One can reject the explanation and assume that the medium is cheating, however this may not be correct. Has a fraud been perpetrated in this situation - yes of course, however it is not necessarily reasonable to conclude that the medium is the one responsible for it, unless of course we reject the possibility that he may have been controlled by another.

[Michael Prescott]

"I think the point here is that, if one accepts the explanation, the medium was not controlling the action and therefore was not cheating."

I get that, but then how can a medium ever be seen as cheating? "An evil spirit made me do it" is an all-purpose excuse, a get-out-of-jail-free card. Even if a medium denies the influence of a malign spirit and takes full responsibility, we might say, "Well, an evil spirit is making him say that."

At some point we start to resemble those folks who continue to believe in a televangelist even after he has confessed to all sorts of chicanery.

[Paul]

Hi Michael

I guess it depends whether or not one accepts that it is possible for a person to be controlled in this way by another 'entity' (let's say) - assuming such exist.

If I assume that it is not possible, then the only alternatives are that it was a deliberate cheat, or something occurring during an altered state of consciousness of some kind (i.e. not deliberate in the usual sense).

If however I considered that there was evidence that such entities did exist, and that they may be able to effect such control then it is perhaps more difficult to be sure this is a case of 'medium cheating'.

In the latter case, I think I would consider the surrounding evidence: we have a witness (Zerdini)to the event to whom we can put questions; this person is also able to give a great deal of background information. If I were to accept that this kind of control was possible and regarded Z as a reliable witness then I might conclude that there was some external control (or that this was likely, or possible) - particularly if this was the only situation where this had occurred, and the medium had a record of providing good evidence in other ways.

If a medium claims 'the devil made me do it' in similar circumstances, it would be difficult have much confidence they were not cheating without some supporting evidence of the type above. I think perhaps it is necessary to treat each case individually.

Your observation regarding those who continue to believe people who have admitted they are frauds is correct, but in this case my understanding is that Colin Fry has given an explanation and has not admitted chicanery. To compare him with the televangelist situation you refer to, it would be necessary to determine that this is in fact a case of fraud. Not everyone would share that view based on the evidence and testimony given.

[Zerdini]

"What is not generally realised that a similar incident happened to Stainton Moses in the late nineteenth century."

Then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that Stainton Moses was engaging in fraud, at least in that instance?

Not without supporting evidence.

Zerdini, if catching the medium out of his chair holding the "levitating" megaphone in his hand isn't enough to convict him of cheating, then what is?

He wasn't 'caught'. The guides explained that they put the lights on in order to dislodge the entity who was controlling Fry and in this they were successful.

This was in the early days of his development as a physical medium and was an experiment for members of the NAS. It was not open to the general public.

Is there any behavior on the part of the medium that would discredit him in your eyes? In your years of investigating, did you debunk any mediums? If so, how?

I'll answer this quite simply.

During the last fifty years I have sat with ten physical mediums who produced phenomena of one kind or another but no more than six produced actual evidence of survival.

This is the criterion I use when assessing any form of mediumship.

I do not debunk mediums based on other peoples' views or on what I have read in the press.

I prefer to make up my own mind on the evidence presented to me.

I don't accept that the matter is quite so black or white as is implied.

Physical mediumship is full of anomalies as a lifetime's study of the subject has revealed.

Mental mediumship is a very different kettle of fish, however.

John Edward and James van Praagh, for example, I find totally unconvincing yet George Anderson appears, from what I have seen and heard from people who have experienced his mediumship, to provide excellent evidence of survival. I have not seen the latter so I can't speak from personal experience.

[Bruce Siegel]

"The guides explained that they put the lights on in order to dislodge the entity who was controlling Fry and in this they were successful."

If true, you'd think the guides might have come up with a better way to do that, considering that they subjected their "friend" to an enormously embarrassing situation that might have destroyed his reputation then and there.

With spiritual allies like that, who needs enemies?

[...]

Colin Fry is a terrible Medium sorry *cough* Cold Reader *cough* How anybody can defend this guy is beyond me.

I've went to one of his live shows that he held in a Town Hall years ago and he was getting a large number of misses and only a small amount of hits, Cold Reader extraordinaire is all I have to say, It seemed to me like he was fishing for Information more than anything else.

I think the Incident with him holding the so called Levitating Trumpet in that experiment says it all about Mr Fry, I believe there are "Real" Mediums in this World but Colin Fry isn't one of them sorry.

[Paul]

Speaking for my own coments I am not defending Colin Fry, because I don't know him. I am simply arguing from a logical perspective. I don't know whether Colin is genuine or not because I have never met him or had any information from him.

I have seen Colin give what appears to be very good evidence only to taint it on occasion by attempting to interpret the information. I suppose Colin Fry is as susceptible to bad days as anyone else doing that kind of work.

If you are saying that you think it is possible for us to be influenced by 'spirits' then you must admit that it is possible that was the situation described. How you decide to interpret it is up to you.

[Matt Rouge]

Here's my take on the Fry stuff.

Guys, it's a game. Turn down the lights. Hides-and-seeksie. Produce phenomena legitimately or fakely, make people impressed and get money. It's a show.

That's the main problem here: it's a show with its own set of rules. For example, whether you think David Thompson is legit or not, his whole setup just reeks of vaudeville.

And thus you have "live by the show, die by the show." A more sacred ceremony done in visible light in a more subdued atmosphere would be judged by totally different standards.

The spirits, if they're there, should know this. They turn away for a moment and allow "lower entities" to possess a man? Don't do that sh*t! Turn on the lights to dislodge the entity leading to the man's looking like a total fraud. As Bruce notes, stupid move!

When people see the tricks behind the circus act, they're not going to be happy. At this point, to say, "Oh but it's *still* really legitimate is rather beside the point."

You shouldn't be selling Cirque du Spirit as something beautiful and sacred in the first place, but, if you do, make sure your performers, whether in the flesh or in spirit, do a damn good job of it.

[Zerdini]

Nothing was being 'sold', Matt.

It was a private demonstration for members of the NAS by a medium at the beginning of his mediumship. He was not paid.

[Matt Rouge]

Zerdini,

But even then it was not an altruistic enterprise, no? He was starting a career.

I am not overly cynical about mediums making money. Everyone needs to make a buck in this world.

But there are different ways of going about that. You yourself say that it's all about demonstrating proof of survival. I totally agree with that. Trumpets flying about the room and whatnot are pure showmanship. It becomes too crass a "product" for my taste.

Cheers,

Matt

[Michael Prescott]

"He wasn't 'caught'. The guides explained that they put the lights on in order to dislodge the entity who was controlling Fry and in this they were successful."

But the guides spoke through Fry, correct? So essentially it was Fry who provided this explanation.

Zerdini, I may be misunderstanding you, but the impression I got from your answer is that you've never personally encountered a physical or materialization medium you would regard as an outright fraud. But surely you agree that there are some outright frauds in this field?

[Zerdini]

Matt wrote:
But even then it was not an altruistic enterprise, no? He was starting a career.

That is not correct. He was doing an occasional seance for the NAS when we held a seminar (usually two or three times a year).

Stuart Adamson aka Stewart Alexander was also a demonstrating medium for the NAS at the same seminars.

I suggested to Colin that he would be better phasing out phenomena and concentrating on Direct Voice seances which were more evidential and he did.

I received a lot of flak from members who still wanted phenomena and were not happy that we no longer offered it at our seminars or public seances.

[Zerdini]

MP wrote:
But the guides spoke through Fry, correct? So essentially it was Fry who provided this explanation.

Again this is not correct.

The guides who manifested spoke independently of the medium.

Zerdini, I may be misunderstanding you, but the impression I got from your answer is that you've never personally encountered a physical or materialization medium you would regard as an outright fraud. But surely you agree that there are some outright frauds in this field?

Michael, I've met many who were deluded but none that I would swear hand on heart that they were outright frauds.

The committee held 'auditions' from time to time for those who wanted to demonstrate for the NAS.

We provided a venue and suitable conditions for those who wanted to demonstrate their ability but unfortunately none were up to the standard we required.

Outright frauds like Lamar Keene and William Roy are very rare.

I've read reports about some current physical mediums but none seem to provide the all-important evidence of survival so are of no interest to me.

I agree with Matt that flying trumpets and associated phenomena are meaningless.

[Todd]

I've always been skeptical of spirit communicators but I can't deny my personal experiences since I've opened my mind to the possibilities that there is a reality beyond what we can see, hear, taste and touch.

[Tony]

Makes me wonder if the scientists of the time were just given a 'back hander'to say it was genuine - but that would rely on the medium having a good salary from the sittings!!

[Paul]

Scepticism seems to me to be a perfectly sensible position to adopt. It is important perhaps to try to prevent it transforming into cynicism.

[Michael Prescott]

"Outright frauds like Lamar Keene and William Roy are very rare."

Here is the heart of our little disagreement, Zerdini. From everything I've read, fraud has always been rampant among physical and materialization mediums. Literally hundreds of fakers were exposed in the heyday of Spiritualism. Whole communities of mediums were populated by frauds; Lamar Keene discusses one such "Spiritualist camp" in his book - I think it was called Camp Silverbell, though I could be misremembering the name. One prominent medium at the camp made the mistake of allowing a seance to be filmed with infrared photography; the film showed accomplices sneaking into the room through a secret entrance to impersonate the spirits. As I've mentioned before, the three investigators who studied Palladino in 1908 had previously exposed more than 100 fake physical and materialization mediums. Harry Houdini debunked dozens of fakers on his own. The SPR was so disgusted by the amount of fraud in this area that they stopped investigating physical and materialization mediums altogether (they never adopted a similar policy toward mental mediums).

Perhaps there is less fraud nowadays; I don't know. But the history of mediumship of this type does not provide much basis for optimism, IMO.

[Zerdini]

It was Camp Chesterfield, Michael.

It was the editor of the "Psychic Observer" who exposed the fraud. I posted the actual story on the Internet on various forums some years ago.

I was in my comment referring to frauds of which I had personal knowledge not what other people claimed.

I would like to know who all these so-called 'fake physical and materialization mediums' are.

Blanket statements like that are not helpful.

As for Houdini - his disgraceful behaviour at Mina Crandon's seances says it all -he is not a good example.

[Zerdini]

The first séance with the cabinet was not a success. Acting on a tip from Walter, Dr. Crandon discovered a small pencil eraser wedged into the bell box to prevent it from ringing. Outraged, the physician accused Houdini of attempting to sabotage the proceedings–a charge the magician repeatedly denied.

Another attempt proved even more dismal. A collapsible carpenter's ruler–which might have been used to manipulate the bell box and other apparatus from within the cabinet–was discovered at Margery's feet. Margery's defenders saw this as a craven attempt by Houdini to discredit her.

'Houdini, you God damned bastard, get the hell out of here and never come back!' exclaimed the voice of Walter at the séance.

In Houdini's view, the folding ruler had been planted to impugn his testimony, and he resented that anyone would take Walter's word over his.

By the time Scientific American finally declined to grant the prize to Margery, in large part due to Houdini's exposures, the combustible magician had quarreled, sometimes violently, with every member of the committee. Bird, whom Houdini suspected of active collusion with the Crandons, had resigned as secretary. In his final verdict of the Margery phenomenon, Houdini wrote, 'My decision is, that everything which took place at the seances which I attended was a deliberate and conscious fraud….'

From the great beyond, Walter weighed in with a prediction: Houdini, he said, would be dead within a year. Houdini managed to thwart the prophecy, but only just. He died on October 31, 1926, of complications following a blow to the stomach.

In an interview with the press, Margery offered a few words of conciliation, praising Houdini's virile personality and great determination.

By the way, Michael, I have read your article "The Two Faces of Margery".

[Michael Prescott]

"It was Camp Chesterfield, Michael."

Thanks, Zerdini. I was pretty sure I had the wrong name.

Houdini's alleged behavior in the Margery case certainly calls his professionalism into question, but I don't think his scores of debunkings can be so easily dismissed. Most were pretty straightforward. In one case he simply took care to tie up a purported materialization medium with knots that could not be undone. The poor fellow struggled in vain for some time, then said sadly in his heavy Italian accent, "The spooks, they no come."

When I was arguing about the David Thompson case I made a list of fake physical and materialization mediums. I'll see if I can find it. It was pretty long. Off the top of my head, some who were caught engaging in fraud, or who confessed to it, were Rosina Showers, Florence Cook, the Davenport Brothers, Lamar Keene, Mable Riffle, Edith Stillwell, and Mina Crandon (discredited by the "thumb" incident even if not by Houdini). I would also include Helen Duncan and Marthe Beraude, based on photographic evidence. But there are many more. One of the mediums who performed for Mrs. Lincoln at the White House was exposed just a few weeks later, when tackled by a journalist at a D.C. seance.

[Michael Prescott]

More physical and materialization mediums who were exposed as fakes: William Eglinton, William Roy (direct voice), Francis Ward Monck, the Bangs sisters, Charles Eldred, Charles Bailey, Ladislos Lasslo, Stanislawa Popielska, and Henry Slade (slate writing). Madame Blavatsky, known for apport-like appearances of letters from her spirit masters, was exposed as a fake by Richard Hodgson.

See: www.prairieghosts/magicians.html and www.pflyceum.org/83.html .

There were many, many more. Spiritualism fell out of favor largely on account of the number of exposures reported in the press throughout the 1920s.

[Michael Prescott]

BTW, the Italian medium mentioned earlier was Niño Pecoraro, and his sad words are sometimes rendered as "Spooks-a no come."

[Paul]

Hi Michael - how were the Bangs Sisters exposed as fraudulent?

[PaulS]

Great post. I myself believe in the continuation of consciousness after death but feel that the ego will be eradicated over time.

The ego defends strongly held beliefs. I once attended a David Thompson seance and i left feeling that if you were a staunch believer or skeptic, both would have felt vindicated over their views.

[Zerdini]

I disagree with you, Michael,regarding some of the names you mention as fakes e.g. William Eglinton.

An excellent essay on his mediumship can be read here:

http://www.spiritwritings.com/williameglinton.html

Many of the Bangs Sisters spirit portraits are still on display in the UK and the USA.

I have seen them.

No-one has yet been able to produce similar works, even today, nor been able to satisfactorily explain how they were done assuming they were fraudulently produced.

As I said before it is easy to make accusations. I prefer to hear from people who were actually present and can speak from personal experience.

[Michael Prescott]

"how were the Bangs Sisters exposed as fraudulent?"

See this article:

http://www.miraclefactory.net/mpt/view.php?id=195&type=articles

"I disagree with you, Michael,regarding some of the names you mention as fakes e.g. William Eglinton."

From a web page:

"William Eglinton was the third popular medium to be exposed in 1876. The accounts of his séances are some of the most dramatic that have been recorded and include a number of materializations that took place outdoors and in broad daylight. Thomas Colley, the Archdeacon of Natal in Southern Africa and the Rector of Stockton in England, finally exposed Eglinton. Archdeacon Colley was an eager psychical researcher and he cut off pieces of the white robe and beard of a spirit that Eglinton allegedly manifested. Later investigation showed that the items that he snipped off exactly matched some muslin and a false beard that was found in the medium’s suitcase."

Source: http://www.prairieghosts.com/magicians.html

[Zerdini]

I've read all these stories before - they are not convincing.

As Moore wrote:
"I respect Mr. Abbott. He candidly owns that all his theories about the Bangs Sisters’ pictures previous to 1909 were entirely erroneous. I ask myself this plain question: Why has not this diligent conjurer been to sit with the Bangs Sisters? He lives within a reasonable distance. If he does sit with them, he will find his latest theory as rotten as his previous ones.”

"Admiral Moore tested the Bangs for a gruelling five days, January 28th to February 1st, 1911, and the ordeal, according to Moore 'left both sisters much exhausted'. May Bangs could hardly walk, and Lizzie, though calm, had evidently reached the limits of endurance.

After his series of tests, which were a complete and total success for a precipitated portrait and independent writing - the researching aspect of which even left me totally exhausted - the Bangs Sisters triumphed, and Admiral Moore proved his case again.

He conclusively stated:' Either the author of that article has never been inside the Bangs' house, or he is incapable of making ordinary observations with accuracy. The attack on these psychics, without sending them a copy, and in an English magazine which he knew they would not see, is an act that requires no comment from me'.

Carrington had also claimed that David P Abbott had succeeded in duplicating the Bangs Sisters portraits by trickery exactly. The Admiral replied that he made a number of tests, and that he read carefully the expose by Dr Krebs, which was furnished to him by Dr Hodgson, that he knew the method employed by Abbott, Mariott and Dr Wilmar, that it surpassed in skill almost every conjuring trick he had ever witnessed, but that their conditions were as different from those at the seances of the Bangs Sisters as 'a locomotive is different from a teapot'. It was the conjuring performance of these clowns as a matter of fact which convinced him even more of the genuineness of the Bangs Sisters.

[Zerdini]

As far as Eglinton is concerned:

A more serious charge against him was made by Archdeacon Colley, who declared that at the house of Mr. Owen Harries, where Eglinton was giving a seance, he discovered in the medium's portmanteau some muslin and a beard, with which portions of drapery and hair cut from alleged materialized figures corresponded.

Mrs. Sidgwick, in her article in the S.P.R. journal, reproduced Archdeacon Colley's charges, and Eglinton, in his general reply to her, contents himself with a flat denial, remarking that he was absent in South Africa when the charges were published and did not see them until years after.

* MEDIUM AND DAYBREAK, 1878, pp. 698, 730. THE SPIRITUALIST, 1879, Vol. XIV, pp. 83, 135. 1886, p. 324.

Discussing this incident, LIGHT in a leading article says that the charges in question were fully investigated by the Council of the British National Association of Spiritualists and dismissed on the ground that the Council could by no means get direct evidence from the accusers. It goes on:

Mrs. Sidgwick has suppressed very material facts in her quotation as printed in the JOURNAL. In the first place the alleged circumstances occurred two years previous to the letter in which the accuser made his charge, during which time he made no public move in the matter, and only did so at all in consequence of personal pique against the Council of the late B.N.A.S. In the second place, the suppressed portions of the letter quoted by Mrs. Sidgwick bear upon their face the mark of utter worthlessness. We affirm that no one accustomed to examine and weigh evidence in a scientific manner would have accorded to the correspondence the slightest serious attention without the clearest corroborative testimony.

None the less, it must be admitted that when so whole-hearted a Spiritualist as Archdeacon Colley makes so definite a charge, it becomes a grave matter which cannot be lightly dismissed. There is always the possibility that a great medium, finding his powers deserting him-as such powers do-should resort to fraud in order to fill up the gap until they return. Home has narrated how his power was suddenly taken from him for a year and then returned in full plenitude. When a medium lives on his work such a hiatus must be a serious matter and tempt him to fraud. However that may have been in this particular instance, it is certain, as has surely been shown in these pages, that there is a mass of evidence as to the reality of the powers of Eglinton which cannot possibly be shaken.

Among other witnesses to his powers is Kellar, the famous conjurer, who admitted, as many other conjurers have done, that psychic phenomena far transcend the powers of the juggler.

[Douglas]

Again, I think the evidence points towards the fact that you can have the situation where you have genuine mediums who engage in fraud on occasion, no doubt jutstifying it to themselves due to the requirement for on-demand phenomena.

Nobody here seems willing to accept this possibility, neither skeptics or believers.

I think the excellent evidence for genuine phenomena AND good evidence of fraud can be found co-currently with the same mediums and therefore this remains the most likely explanation.

[Paul]

Nobody here seems willing to accept this possibility, neither skeptics or believers I don't think this is true Douglas. I for one find it perfectly possible that this is the case sometimes.

It is perhaps interesting that some folk are happy to accept that well-respected people who describe phenomena in reasonable conditions are the subject of insinuations about their method, honesty and sanity, whilst those alleging fraud are often received without much assessment of their own character or potential motivations.

[Michael Prescott]

"you have genuine mediums who engage in fraud on occasion, no doubt justifying it to themselves due to the requirement for on-demand phenomena."

I think this was true of Palladino and may have been true of the Fox sisters in their later years. Concerning mental mediums, it may have been true of Arthur Ford, who certainly cheated in his later career but may (perhaps) have had genuine abilities earlier. I think it's also possible that Helen Duncan had some genuine abilities as a mental medium, but faked the materializations to add more commercial appeal to her seances. I'm sure there are other examples.

But there are also outright frauds like Lamar Keene.

[Zerdini]

Paul has summed this up very well when he wrote:

"It is perhaps interesting that some folk are happy to accept that well-respected people who describe phenomena in reasonable conditions are the subject of insinuations about their method, honesty and sanity, whilst those alleging fraud are often received without much assessment of their own character or potential motivations."

I agree that there were outright frauds like Lamar Keene and william Roy but most of the rest is pure speculation.

The testimonies to Helen Duncan's materializations are numerous - e.g.Fleet Street journalists Roy Brandon and Hannen Swaffer.