Blog powered by Typepad

« The unbearable strangeness of being | Main | Book review (part two): Life after Death, by Jan W. Vandersande »


Well, after your review, I'm definitely not going to run out and buy this book. Just from what you've posted so far, it would be impossible not to question Vandersande's judgment and impartiality in researching paranormal phenomenon.

The mere fact that Zammit heartily recommends this book should be a warning to intended readers.
He certainly seems to have little personal evidence of physical mediumship other than whizzing trumpets.
Self-published books are often peppered with proofreading errors as is this one.
No mainstream publisher would print a book like this.Arthur Findlay's book, "On the Edge of the Etheric", featuring the direct voice mediumship of John Sloan, was the first book on Spiritualism I read and sparked a lifelong interest in the paranormal that led to many interesting personal experiences.
I have read "The Psychic Mafia" and is a sordid story of greed and dishonesty but a warning to the gullible and I've met a few!

“And there are reasons (presented here) to believe that Florence may have worked with her own sister to produce the so-called materializations for Crookes.”

Very bias one-sided view of the Florence Cook’s séances by Peter Brookesmith.

Please note Peter Brookesmith said little about other attendees at these séances such as Florence Marryat. She wrote a whole chapter on these séances and often she was in the room with Katie and Florence when Katie dematerialized with Florence in a trance.

That would be a neat stunt to dematerialize in front of someone.

Also Crookes invited several of his peers to attend these séances and most refused to attend. And when Katie was grabbed by Volkman she dematerialized in front of him and this could have harmed Florence severely. This story has two sides. Do we believe the skeptic Volkman or the attendees? The answer is neither for both we have to suspect are bias.

Now maybe Florence or her sister also seduced Florence Marryat. Or Florence Marryat could have lied but read her book she appears to be a skeptic before she investigated these séances as a journalistic assignment. She writes a very convincing book on séances. A must read.

I have NO idea if these séances were real or not I just find it interesting how these skeptics pick and choose information to fit their bias. There is little evidence that Brookesmith read Florence Marryat’s book there is no death and if he did he chose not to use that information. She was a well-known author and journalist and an early skeptic.

I did read that Crookes always made sure the mother and sister were seated with the group during the séances but for me they should have been duct taped to the chair. Ok I know they did not have duct tape then. If you were a fraud would you contact the most famous scientist in England to validate your séances?

Crookes because of his reputation did a lousy job of documenting his approach to preventing fraud during these séances. He thought, as a famous scientist that people would believe him. He did not understand the materialistic mind of humankind.

Let me duct tape David Thompson to his chair and I guarantee you he will stay in that chair. But even then the skeptics would scream he had an accomplice. It never ends does it; there is always an out.

We humans tend to pick and choose information that we want to use to support our beliefs. I think in today’s language we would call it cherry picking. The universe has not given up her secrets yet, but the materialists want to think she has.

My interest has been much of my life the human mind and how beliefs can overwhelm our rational mind. We literally see through our beliefs. I think that awareness (i.e. spirit) is viewing reality outside these beliefs that we humans tend to make sacred. I.e. infallible.

Michael, I've said this before and I will say it again: You really should write a book on the paranormal. It would easily become one of the best around.

Michael I was shocked when you said that Victor demands a skeptic disprove a negative. How is the evidence for life after death negative? All these skeptics have to do is point out when and where this fraud took place.

I was shocked when you said that Victor demands a skeptic disprove a negative

I said his challenge requires the skeptic to prove a negative, which cannot be done. For instance, if I say that I saw a unicorn, no one can prove I didn't see it.

True, but it's more than anedoctal evidence their is documented evidence.The skeptic all he has to do is look at the evidence for survival and show where fraud took place. Of course one instance of fraud won't do it but that is the point of the challenge. Michael you are starting to sound like Richard Wiseman unicorns lol oh no say you ain't becoming a materialist again?

it's more than anedoctal evidence their is documented evidence

Much of the evidence is old, and the people who participated in the tests are all dead. In those cases there really is no way to investigate or rebut their claims. That's not to say the claims are false, only that they cannot, at this point, be disproved. Zammit's challenge is therefore unwinnable even in principal. It is a publicity stunt, and not a very good one.

The so-called evidence via David Thompson doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


It's possible to prove a negative. See that article by a philosopher of logic:

I liked your review of Vandersande's book. I'll get a copy soon.

The book of Findlay is wonderful. The evidence he provides is very good, and I think fraud reasonably discarded in most cases.

The comments to this entry are closed.