Let's get physical

At the risk of confirming my newfound reputation as a diehard skeptic, I thought I would write just a little more about "physical" mediumship. Previously I raised some questions about a recent seance conducted by David Thompson in Sydney, Australia. Now I'd like to link to a report of another Thompson seance, this one from 2003.

The report was written by the late Montague Keen, a respected figure among researchers in this area. Serious attempts were made to guard against fraud. Nevertheless, I am not sure the precautions were as airtight as they should have been.

The seance was held in the home of one Denzil Fairbairn. The room in question had no windows and only one door, which was blocked by a sitter's chair. It was thoroughly searched, and Thompson and the sitters were searched, as well.

Keen notes,

The chair (owned by [the homeowner]) in which the medium sat was an old-fashioned upholstered, heavy, wooden construction which I examined carefully, having regard to a claim by the magician Ian Rowland, when commenting on television on Thompson’s reputed feats, that this could be done by illusionists when the ends of the chair arms were not securely connected to the posts, thereby enabling the medium to raise his arms from the post and slip the cable ties off his arms: a suggestion I examine later. I could find no loose connections, and was unable to move the arms or see or feel anything abnormal underneath the chair.

Keen addresses the issue of a possible accomplice, observing,

The only other "regulars" on whom suspicion might rest were Bianca [the medium's wife], Paul the leader who was seated next to me, and whose voice and location would have clearly identified him, and DF, the host, who was seated at the opposite end of the room from the medium. Any of these possibilities would have easily and immediately detectable by those present, as well as likely to be defeated by listening to the tape recording.

The close arrangement of the chairs, as shown in photos, would have made it difficult for anyone to leave the circle without being detected. The room was only 15' X 9'6" in Keen's estimate, and was crowded with more than a dozen people. There were items on the floor between the two rows of facing seats, which would have further impeded stealthy movement in the dark.

I still wish something else had been placed on the floor - crinkled newspaper, perhaps - to pick up any footsteps, or that some other means had been employed to make it less likely for someone to leave the circle.

In contrast to the total darkness of the Sydney seance, dim red light was allowed at one point. It showed the medium apparently still secured to his chair, extruding what was purportedly ectoplasm. But the light was low, visibility poor, and I'm not sure much was gained by this part of the experiment.

Now, where are the weaknesses in the protocol?

My first area of concern is the fact that David Thompson was secured to the chair by his wife Bianca. Keen says that this was done "under [his own] close supervision" and that he tested the plastic ties afterward and confirmed that they were tight. Nevertheless, it would have been preferable if the ties had been applied by someone unconnected with the medium.

It is also somewhat problematic that Bianca sat nearest to Thompson. A better protocol would have placed Bianca and any other "regulars" as far away from the medium as possible. In fact, it would have been better if no "regulars" had been in the room at all.

Keen notes that among the various items left on the floor for use in the experiment was "a pair of pliers which were employed by Bianca to cut the ties to release her husband after the sitting." Here I think we have a real problem. The pliers' availability in the seance room naturally suggests the possibility that someone could have picked them up, freed the medium, and then resecured him with fresh ties before the lights came on.

Because of these lapses, a critic could suggest the following scenario: Bianca secures Thompson to the chair, thus ensuring that she knows the precise location of all the ties. In the dark she retrieves the pliers from the floor and cuts the ties, freeing her husband. (Since she was frequently called on to play various musical recordings, she could not have had her hands held throughout the seance.) Thompson is then able to maneuver in darkness, move objects, do the voices, etc. He reverses his sweater (which was found reversed after the seance) and then he and Bianca attach new ties (smuggled into the room) to replace those that were cut.

Please note that I am not asserting that it happened this way. I'm only saying that the possibility of a scenario of this kind cannot be absolutely ruled out.

To have precluded this explanation, the experimenters might have prevented Bianca or any other "regular" from participating in the seance, or at least placed them at the farthest distance from the medium. They might have removed the pliers from the room. They might have spread material on the floor to detect footsteps. They might have insisted on continuous hand-holding throughout the seance, with no interruptions. They might have secured the "regulars" to their chairs, if only with Velcro strips that would make noise when torn off. They might have demanded a closer inspection of Thompson under the red light - and especially an inspection of the plastic ties, to see if they were still secured. They might have marked the ties in some way so that if they were cut and replaced, the substitution would be noted. 

With all this said, I will again baffle and annoy the skeptics by saying that I think some "physical" mediumship is genuine, and that the Eusapia Palladino sittings in Naples, supervised by Everard Feilding, are perhaps the best-documented case on record. Several of those sittings were conducted entirely in red light, bright enough to read by, and the experienced investigators (some of whom were skilled in magic, and who had collectively exposed scores of fraudulent mediums) had ample opportunity to examine the phenomena at length.

For instance, when a heavy table levitated, one or more of the investigators actually crawled beneath it to confirm that all four legs were off the floor, that Palladino was not lifting the table with her knees, and that no mechanical device was used. (Not that a mechanical device could have been installed without their knowledge; the sittings took place in their own hotel room.)

The extensive precautions and careful observation in the Naples case render any skeptical explanation problematic. The only "explanations" I've heard are that a) the four investigators were collectively hallucinating, and b) an accomplice managed to enter the hotel room through the door to the adjoining room. But collective hallucinations of this sort are unknown, and if an accomplice had entered, he would have been seen in the red light. Besides, the table wasn't lifted by an accomplice; the investigators studied it from above and below while it was levitating.

For more on the Palladino sittings, see Stephen E. Braude's The Limits of Influence.

The bottom line is that, in my opinion, remarkable physical phenomena can occur in the seance room, but in order to be sure that the effects are genuine, the precautions must be airtight and the observations must be impeccable. In the case of the David Thompson seance reported here, I think would be premature to conclude that verifiable paranormal events took place.

Comments

[John C]

I do not think Michael Prescott's raising of legitimate questions about the protocol and results of a recent seance in Sydney is akin to being a closed-minded skeptic as Mr. Zammit would lead his readers to believe. Even taken out of context's Michael's criticisms of the seance are not overbearingly skeptical, just practical criticisms and observations. But taken in the context of Michael's general openess to psychic phenomena of all sorts and as demonstrated by his numerous writings in support of the belief in psychic phenomena, often critiquing skeptical arguements and demonstrating the fallacy of the skeptical point of view, it seems as if Mr. Zammit is picking a fight with the wrong person. Anyone who has read Michael's blog can clearly see that Michael, to the consternation of many "skeptics", is very open to psychic phenomenon, and sometimes comes under criticism from the same skeptical quarters that Mr. Zammit is accusing Michael of residing in.

It seems to me that the proponents of psychic phenomena like Mr. Zammit do their cause a great disservice when they fail to address legitimate criticisms and questions about the evidence the put forward in regards to psychic phenomena, such as his recent sceance in Sydney. Michael was not raising the typical claptrap criticisms that closed-minded skeptics often raise regarding psychic phenomena. Michael raised some very legitimate questions, and they should be addressed considering the highly controversial nature of the claim, that spirits from the afterlife were contacted and recorded recently in Sydney. It is not open minded or scientific to simply dismiss criticisms of one's research out of hand. Even mainstream and mundane science experiments come under routine criticisms that they must address in order to fulfill the rigors of science. Mr. Zammit should keep a level head and simply address the critcisms, especially when the come from generally sympathetic quarters like an obeserver such as Michael Prescott. I have to agree with Michael, the sydney tapes are not terribly impressive and certainly leave the impression of being some sort of fakery, and the onus is clearly on those claiming these are voices from the afterlife to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Conduct another seance under even more rigious conditions, if necessary. There is no reason for us to just accept this as evidence of life from beyond, and I too am one who believes in and has reported my own psychic phenomena.

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks, John!

[Leo]

Hey, you seem to doubt that etherians can materialize i know you were not there so doubt is necessary however you seem to have no trust in Victor Zammit which has very high credientals and David Thompson he clearly shows on his website that precautions were taking place so there is no fakery and here the vocies for yourself sorry but that is not fakery I do appreciate you supporting the afterlife but at times you seem to doubt it.