IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Chris Carter's latest | Main | »

Comments

Are the warnings regarding 'maligh' spirit forces much different from the caution one should exercise before trusting or engaging any person we do not know well?

If mediums (provided they deliver the service promised) cannot charge then perhaps telephone carriers should either? :)

Meant shouldn't. Sorry. Dammit.

@ DavidR, who said: ' There is no evidence of any after life. There is suggestion. Suggestion is not evidence.' Sorry, but you are quite wrong here. There is a walloping great load of evidence of an afterlife. It was adduced by pre-eminent scientists and other scholars in the latter part of the 19th century (the big names Crookes, Myers, Lodge and James come to mind readily). Contemporary scholarship is not presently engaging directly with evidence of afterlife. (But it is very heavily engaged in the mind-body distinction problem, which is the essential rational basis of the afterlife tenet and its denial.)
You seem to me to be confusing 'evidence' with 'proof'. I do not understand why you posit 'suggestion'. A quick courtroom analogy should clarify this: A witness who gives evidence to the effect that the accused stole a valuable item is not 'suggesting' that the accused stole it. He is 'claiming (asserting)' that he stole it. Cumulative evidence can succeed to make out a case against an accused in a civil court. It is only in the criminal court that a case against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. And even there, the weight of evidence can achieve a conviction. I.e., absolute (testable empirical) proof is not demanded. And weight of evidence is very firmly on the side of 'the afterlife is' thesis: Many people adduce evidence of it.

@Juan: "And fourth, thank you very much for that text of David Rousseau, Alexander1304."
No problem ,Juan,my pleasure.
I have to admit,I never took NDE seriously,no think I could be very well mistaken. I always focused only on mental mediumship, to lesser degree direct-voice(Findlay-Sloan,Randal-French) and reincarnatioin.

By the way,I've got a copy of the "debunking" book wrote by one philosopher in 1965,where he debunks traditioinal argument for survival,even those that considered strong: cross-correspondence,newspaper test.He then discuss mediumship of Piper,Leonard,Garret,and(of course) concludes that ESP is most rational explanation.No discussion of direct-voice,NDE(was not known by then...),or reincarnation(Stevesnon just started...).
Juan,wanna have a look?If so - give me e-mail I'll send it

@ DavidR, who said: ' There is no evidence of any after life. There is suggestion. Suggestion is not evidence.' Sorry, but you are quite wrong here. There is a walloping great load of evidence of an afterlife. It was adduced by pre-eminent scientists and other scholars in the latter part of the 19th century (the big names Crookes, Myers, Lodge and James come to mind readily). Contemporary scholarship is not presently engaging directly with evidence of afterlife. (But it is very heavily engaged in the mind-body distinction problem, which is the essential rational basis of the afterlife tenet and its denial.)
You seem to me to be confusing 'evidence' with 'proof'. I do not understand why you posit 'suggestion'. A quick courtroom analogy should clarify this: A witness who gives evidence to the effect that the accused stole a valuable item is not 'suggesting' that the accused stole it. He is 'claiming (asserting)' that he stole it. Cumulative evidence can succeed to make out a case against an accused in a civil court. It is only in the criminal court that a case against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. And even there, the weight of evidence can achieve a conviction. I.e., absolute (testable empirical) proof is not demanded. And weight of evidence is very firmly on the side of 'the afterlife is' thesis: Many people adduce evidence of it.

@ Matt Rouge: Ah, but Matt, super-psi is not said to gain information from the dead. It is said to gain it from anamolous sources. It does not contemplate the dead as a source of information. Indeed, its fundamental assumption is that the dead cannot be such a source.

(That notwithstanding, the super-psi hypothesis is simply not supportable, as the absence of any kind of support for it demonstrates.)

@ DavidR, who said: ' There is no evidence of any after life. There is suggestion. Suggestion is not evidence.' Sorry, but you are quite wrong here. There is a walloping great load of evidence of an afterlife. It was adduced by pre-eminent scientists and other scholars in the latter part of the 19th century (the big names Crookes, Myers, Lodge and James come to mind readily). Contemporary scholarship is not presently engaging directly with evidence of afterlife. (But it is very heavily engaged in the mind-body distinction problem, which is the essential rational basis of the afterlife tenet and its denial.)

You seem to me to be confusing 'evidence' with 'proof'. I do not understand why you posit 'suggestion'. A quick courtroom analogy should clarify this: A witness who gives evidence to the effect that the accused stole a valuable item is not 'suggesting' that the accused stole it. He is 'claiming (asserting)' that he stole it. Cumulative evidence can succeed to make out a case against an accused, even in the criminal court, where the case against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Weight of evidence (a number of people adducing compatible evidence) can achieve a conviction, so it can be considered tantamount to proof. I.e., absolute (testable empirical) proof is not demanded. And weight of evidence is very firmly on the side of 'the afterlife is' hypothesis: Many people adduce evidence of it.

@ Matt Rouge: Ah, but Matt, the super-psi proposition does not contemplate the dead as a possible source of information. On the contrary, it exists to assert that the source accessed by those with super-psi abilities is everything and anything but the dead. (Even so, super-psi is a bummer: nobody has adduced a shred of evidence of it.)

Matt, that's very well stated. I'd have to ponder it awhile, but I'm certainly not averse to the idea that information is what it all comes down to. I've linked to the website The Bottom Layer before; it presents a fascinating case for understanding quantum mechanics in terns of data processing. And of course the building block of life - DNA - is encoded information.

Sophie,

You wrote,

||Ah, but Matt, super-psi is not said to gain information from the dead. It is said to gain it from anamolous sources. It does not contemplate the dead as a source of information. Indeed, its fundamental assumption is that the dead cannot be such a source. ||

Yes, super-psi proponents say that there are no spirits of the dead; mediums are just getting *information* about the previously living through psychic powers.

I am *mooting* this argument by saying that the dead *are* information. Thus, using psi to construct a conversation with a person and using mediumship to "actually" talk with a person are *in essence* the same thing.

So what then is the difference between just knowing facts about a deceased person and actually talking with him/her? Per my limited experience as a medium, when I am actually talking to the spirit, there is definitely a feeling of communicating with a living presence that is *also* recognizing me. I also can just use psi to gather information about a deceased person, and often there is still that presence--but it is not communicating back at me. They are, in other words, not so totally different things. It is the two-way presence/communication that is the differentiator.

Thanks, Michael!

To Pavel, you come from a background immersed in formalized religious beliefs. Perhaps raised this way? I was brought up agnostic, and in many ways I am glad of that, as it has allowed me to see the many forms of religion in this world, more impartially.

Christianity was not the first religion, and came after Hinduism, and all religious books have been written by man.

"The Old Testament is a Christian term for a collection of religious writings of ancient Israel, that form the major and first section of Christian Bibles, in contrast to the New Testament, but only certain Hebrew/Aramaic books were approved by Rabbinic Judaism as part of the Hebrew Canon. The number of these writings varies markedly between denominations, Protestants accepting only the Hebrew Bible's canon but dividing it into 39 books, while Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Ethiopian churches recognise a considerably larger collection."

(Wikipedia)

So Christians believe differently according to which version they follow. Now all religious books have been written by humans, with their many failings and biases, just the same as books written today. And we were not there to determine, if what they wrote was true. So just as then, I think it cautionary to decide yourself, whether their opinion is true.

Now you have to remember, that those who wrote the testaments lived in early times, with less understanding about the universe. When mystical concepts such as evil and Satan were commonly believed.

After my father died, I found I could hear him. And all communications are always loving. Now we are all controlled by what we think, I thought, if I can contact my dad , why not God. I asked him -

"Why do you not let everyone know of you"

And he answered "Why not, then I can help them"

And thoughts came to me- "You can lead a horse to water, but not make them drink" In other words, God says I cant force my beliefs, people must come to understand themselves.

Now I have been asked to help people with this gift from above ( personal experience, not written in a book by others), and you realize when you have it, that you can help people, and that this gift is of no use kept to yourself.

Also in regard to payment, people must earn a living if they commit to this full- time. So I think it is fair to charge, but not exorbitantly so.

We are all adults, and if during a reading, people feel that it is not given to help them or given in love. You simply cease the reading, as you do with anyone who you feel is not worthy.

I have never met anything evil, only people who are very sad and wish to be helped. These are just people like you and I, no different. And just as on earth, if they are not nice, I tell them to leave.

Sent with love to you Pavel, in the hope that you see concepts like "good" and "evil" are not helpful to people and only serve to make them more fearful. Lyn x.

Well, I think "good" and "evil" are necessary concepts.

That said, I think Christianity uses fear to keep people in line.

Teaching that people will go to Hell for eternity unless they believe or do as you say IS evil!

(And a "God" that would actually do that to his "children" would be evil too. Most definitely.)

"Word" Matty, :). But yes, agreed, good is fine, just in context of evil, and ideas promoting concepts of fear. Lyn x.

Why do the dead people come back through mediums to give messages and not to talk like they normally would? That is my question. I'm referring specifically to Leslie Flint's recordings, of which i have listened to many, contrary to what zerdini says.

I see he has already pulled the troll card. That is unfortunate. When you don't agree with someone you censor them.

Michael, i read Chris Carter's book last week. I found the messages from the deceased describing the afterlife at the end of the book rather silly. Betrand Russell in particular.

lynn,
It sounds like you feel Pavel sees things that aren't really there (eg evil) because he looks through the foggy window of formalized Christian belief. What about the New Age idea (a la Seth) that we each create our own reality, and that if Pavel believes in good and evil, they will, for him, actually exist? Stated a little more precisely, what if "good" and "evil" are more than just concepts floating around our there in intellectual space, they are things that he actually creates and that have a real existence - for him?

Alexander1304, could you upload the book in rapidshare? I would recommend to you the book "Survival. Body, Mind and Death in the Light of Psychic Experience" by David Lorimer, I have upload on the next page:

https://rapidshare.com/files/203397285/S.rar

@ DavidR, who said: ' There is no evidence of any after life. There is suggestion. Suggestion is not evidence.' Sorry, but you are of the track here. There is a walloping great load of evidence of an afterlife. It was adduced by pre-eminent scientists and other scholars in the latter part of the 19th century (the big names Crookes, Myers, Lodge and James come to mind readily). Contemporary scholarship is not engaging directly with evidence of afterlife. (But it is very heavily engaged in the mind-body distinction problem, which is the essential rational basis of the afterlife tenet and its denial.)

I wonder if you are confusing 'empirical evidence' and 'proof'? I do not understand why you posit 'suggestion'. A quick courtroom analogy should clarify this: A witness who gives evidence to the effect that the accused stole a valuable item is not 'suggesting' that the accused stole it. He is 'claiming (asserting)' that the accused stole it, and displaying evidence that he stole it. Evidence can succeed to make out a case against an accused, even in the criminal court, where the case against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Weight of evidence (e.g. several people adducing compatible/like evidence) can achieve a conviction. I.e., absolute (testable empirical) proof is not demanded. And the weight of evidence of the compatible/like kind is very firmly on the side of the 'there is an afterlife' hypothesis: Many people have adduce compatible/like evidence of it.

@ Matt Rouge: Ah, but Matt, the super-psi proposition does not contemplate the dead as a possible source of information. On the contrary, it exists to insist that the source accessed by those with super-psi abilities is everything and anything but the dead.
Super-psi is a bummer: Nobody has adduced a shred of evidence of it. There are, of course, psi experiences like distance-viewing, OBEs, etc. Many of these have been subjected to test. But they do not amount to super-psi. The super-psi proposition would have it that all instances of the retrieval of information from anomalous sources is performed by the super-psi function of the brain. The begged question is loud and clear here.

Gosh, sorry! I posted the above three times! Can I possibly delete my two posts of the 19th?

Ok, yes I believe that when people pass their thinking does not change, and they create their own reality. I also think that we are sent to realms there, of which we are most suited according to our level of development. Personally, I don't feel a Satan or evil would be allowed to exist. But what people conceive of a "hell", is in that realm where those who wish harm or think negatively of others, are caught in an "illusion" of that belief. In other words, I don't think you can "murder" over there, even though those less developed souls may wish to.

Personally I think you are very much a product of your thoughts here on earth by the way i.e the way you think and act, similarly determines your world.

Its the passing on of beliefs - that talking with people who have passed who wish to have contact with loved ones, is the work of Satan, and the many negative concepts of evil etc in organized religion which breed an atmosphere of fear, which is not helpful to anyone.

Lyn x.

Dear Matt,

Whoops! Thanks for clarifying with: '... when I am actually talking to the spirit, there is definitely a feeling of communicating with a living presence ...'. Obviously, I was well out of order by challenging you. (Would I be right in thinking that you use your super-psi powers against their (materialists') rules about what it is not?)

Sorry, Sophie, I didn't understand your question. Can you rephrase?

David R,

I don't know how much you know about us "believers" (aka "proponents"), but we are skeptics too. I'd like to think true skeptics: open to the evidence and also open to *not* finding the evidence sufficient. I can provide an example right now.

For the first time, I listened to Leslie Flint recordings on YouTube. I was not impressed. Here's why:

1. The men all sound like the same guy. I will grant that he does a pretty credible woman's voice, although the two women I heard also sounded like each other.

2. When he does foreign accents, they are atrocious. Here is Frederic Chopin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L4bqQtZyeg&feature=related

Atrocious! He makes him sound mentally retarded. How about having Chopin talk in fluent Polish? That would be more impressive.

And here is Thomas Jefferson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wow1ntjmqsA&playnext=1&list=PLE27D8A738F7815ED&feature=results_video

Oh this is much worse! It sounds like the same "guy voice" that Flint does, only he's trying to suppress his British accent and put on... an American accent? This is a clear case of FAIL because it's obvious that Flint has no idea what to do here. It's not known what accent Jefferson would have spoken with back then, but it *is* known that this is *not* it!

Gandhi via Flint does not have a credible accent, either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMsepDu5hKs

Again, sounds like the same dude.

3. Generalities. Just generalities. This is banal crapola, at least what I heard.

I'm not cherry-picking bad stuff. It all sounds awful.

Now we have been tough here (and on other sites as well) on another medium who is still among living: David Thompson. The consensus among commenters here, I think it is fair to say, is that, while it is possible he has some paranormal ability, he is, when all is said and done, not totally legit. Thompson purports to be a materialization medium, but he holds his seances in complete darkness, so no one can see what materializes! People do get touched a lot, however. Also, a trumpet with luminescent tape flies around the room at such speed that either it is a very nice magic trick, or something paranormal is going on. But the thing about Thompson is that, like Flint, his voices are just awful and embarrassing.

You'll also find many/most of the commenters here coloring themselves unimpressed with some very fake fake fake-looking pics of Helen Duncan, which we were just being unimpressed about a few posts ago. And so on.

So there you go, David R, and your comments about Flint are most welcome in my book, as I agree with you (thus far--I am certainly open to other evidence and explanations of the unimpressive voices). I have to call things as I see them. There are many unlegit phenomena.

OTOH, I have to call the seemingly legit phenomena as I see them, too. Mediums have produced simply mind-blowing phenomena. I have also experienced the phenomena directly myself. I know it's real.

Hello aggain, Matt!

It occurred to me that you might be said to be using super-psi powers to scuttle the very purpose for which the super-psi hypothesis was proposed: to attribute the retrieval of anomalous information to the super-psi powers of the brain, not to the dead communicator. (You've scuttled that purpose if you use your super-psi brain powers, inter alia, to retrieve information from the dead.) This is pretty impressive. I'm sorry I missed your point so drastically earlier.

Matt,

have you ever considered that for a communication to take place, there may have to be a 'merging' to some extent, between the deceased personality, and the medium's personality, to allow communication to take place.

This idea of 'merging' was first made known through the Seth material, where Jane Roberts stated that the 'Seth' entity was an amalgamation of Jane Robert's personality and the discarnate personality who chose to communicate - the resulting entity was named 'Seth'.

If we apply this idea to other mediums, we can begin to see why it is that we can get genuine high quality data coming in from the afterlife, such as from Leslie Flint, even although Flint's voices are clearly more firmly aligned to his own. This also explains why the personalities of the communicators are not always exactly as they are when in life, due to the distortion of the merging process.

Now the actual extent of any 'merging process' will differ depending on the medium and also the individial session in progress, so sometimes the individual character and personality of the deceased comes through very strongly. At other times, it is less clear, with more evidence of the medium's personlity showing through.

I think, with this 'merging hypothesis' we can begin to understand and reconcile some of the apparant paradoxes of mediumistic communications.

Flint is a prime example: Yes, the voices sound rather crap and the personalities of various historical figures do not appear to come through very well, but one thing you cannot explain away, as Zerdini rightly points out, is the veridical information that the communicators pass to their relatives - they have no doubt after the sessions that a genuine communication has taken place - also, Flint was repeatedly tested and no evidence of fraud has ever been found.

IMV Flint was the real deal, yet the voices sounded very samey, and the personalities of various historical figures were quite distorted: how do we square this?

A possible answer is that during a mediumistic session, there is a merging of personalities, that of the discarnate personality, and that of the medium. The combined 'entity' is what you end up with.

I think the Seth material was the first to highlight this mechanism but if you apply it to the wider world of mediumship, it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

So the reason many of Flint's voices sound samey, and not unlike Fint's own voice, is that they ARE, in part, Flint's voice, intertwined and modulated by the communicator's voice, to produce something not quite like either!

Just to add, with Flint, once the amalgamted 'entity' is ready to communicate, the modulated voice is then projected into physical reality for the duration of the session; it is clear with Flint, that his own voice box was never used during the session.

However, his 'voice imprint' as it were, certainly forms a distinct part of the voice patterns of the final projected voice if you listen to it. Skeptics point to this as evidence of fraud, however, due to the fact that we can rule out Fraud in Flint's case with a high degree of certainty, then the 'merging hypothesis' explains the results quite readily.

From Dr Parnia's book :

Dr Richard Mansfield (very well respected cardilogist) reported this to Dr Parnia during a coffee break.
"I don't know much about these experiences but I can tell you something that happened to me that really freaked me out.
I still cannot explain how it happened.

One night when I was on call and together with the rest of the team I ran to attend a cardiac arrest. The patient a thirty two year old man was in asystole (flatline) no pulse and wasn't breathing. We continued to resuscitate him even though the outcome looked bleak but he remained in asystole and did not have a pulse. Because he was so young we decided to carry on, but it became obvious we were not winning so as team leader I made the decision to stop. Before stopping I once more checked the monitor and the connections to make sure they were working properly and also that the patient had no pulse. We then stopped and accepted that he was dead and we were all very sad as he was so young.

I left the patient in the room so that the nurses could prepare him for his families arrival. I went outside and sat down by the nurses station to start writing up the medical records but I couldn't remember how many vials of adrenaline I had given him, so about 15 minutes later I went back into the room to check. Whilst in the room I looked across at the patient and noticed he wasn't quite as blue as when I had left him. He defintely looked pinker which was very strange. Rather hesitantly I moved over and checked his groin.

I couldn't believe it. Now he had a pulse. So we had to restart resusitation and call the rest of the cardiac arrest team back. We eventually managed to stabilize him and transferred him to the intensive care unit.

A week later he came back to the ward and to my amazement not only had he recovered but he hadn't suffered any brain damage.
Everyone was sure he would have suffered brain damage because not only had he been through a prolonged resuscitation while in
asystole but he had also been left for fifteen minutes after without any kind of CPR or oxygen.

When I saw him later he told me that he had watched everything from above and described all that had happened in detail.
He told me everything I had said and done such as checking the pulse, deciding to stop resuscitation, going out of the room, coming back later, looking across at him, going over and re-checking his pulse.

He got all the details right which was impossible because not only had he been in asystole (flatline) and had no pulse throughout the arrest, he wasn't even being resusitated for about 15 minutes afterwards. What he told me really freaked me out and to this day I haven't told anyone because I just can't explain it. I also know I definitely checked the moniter, the leads and the gain and his pulse before stopping.

I just can't explain it and I don't think about it anymore.

This case clearly tallies perfectly with the Denture case, the post it note case and all the rest of the veridical OBE's on the record as occuring during cardiac arrest.
That this is occuring is now indisputable. There is something in a human being that will not and cannot die.

oops...cardiologist I meant.

Hey Matt, thanks for articulating it so well. You have articulated my thoughts precisely regarding Leslie Flint. I don't think any more needs to be said in that regard.

RE David Thompson. Ask yourself a question: why would dead people pull off a trick that for all intents and purposes resembles a magic trick, that is of a suit top reversing itself on his body? When you pass over, do you want to come back through a medium and pull a stunt like that?

Of course he holds his seances in the dark. Immediate red flag in my book. Daniel Dunglas Home didn't need the cover of darkness. So either Home was "special" in some way or the excuse that mediums give that the dead people are sensitive to light doesn't make sense.

I am skeptical of mediumship seances. That is all. I find psychic phenomena plausible and i find some mental mediumship plausible. I have experienced something i can only term "ghostly" because no other theory fits and i have had the usual experiences like precognition or deja vu, and regular synchronicities. I have some other experiences with meditation. So i am skeptical for the right reasons. I am not a cynical debunker. My mind is open. Seances - not convincing enough to me.

As for the super-psi versus the survival argument - why either/or? I get the impression that pro-survival interpreters dismiss the super psi hypothesis because it contradicts their belief system, but super-psi should be an interpretation that stands on its own independent of survival interpretations. Something i have continuously come across in my life, especially on the internet, is this ingrained tendency people have to make things black and white. Both/and interpretations don't seem to occur to most people.

David R, please read my last two posts on what i call the 'merging hypothesis', which outlines what is happening with Flint and probably Thompson as well, and indeed the mediumistic process in general.

This helps explain Flint, as despite the fact that the voices sounded samey, Flint was repeatedly tested and no evidence of fraud was found, so you cannot simply explain his mediumship away.

David R, we should all be skeptical in original sense about the mediumship seances, because there has been a lot of fraud in this area, but I think it is also true that there is reasonable evidence of mediumship as communication with deceased.

About afterlife vs super-psi, I wrote that many mediumship cases may be instances of super-psi, but there are other cases that clearly do not fit the super-psi hypothesis and indicate instances of the afterlife, as with cross-correspondences and drop-in communications. In addition to other types of phenomena that abductively point to the same fact, so much has been written on this blog.

So it's true that the afterlife and super-psi are not necessarily exclusive. What happens is that the proponents of the super-psi hypothesis usually support this hypothesis against the afterlife hypothesis, so all genuine mediumship cases would have to be super-psi instances to rule out the afeterlife hypothesis least mediumship. On the other hand, proponents of the afterlife hypothesis are not defending this hypothesis against the super-psi hypothesis, but defend this hypothesis as the most direct explanation for some cases of mediumship. Enough so that in some cases of mediumship the super-psi hypothesis untenable and imposing the afterlife hypothesis.

Hi Douglas, your hypothesis seems fairly sound to me. One issue i would take carefully though is that bloke in Italy who uses a radio to tune in voices of dead people. Assuming that the voices he brings through as still attached to him as the medium, what i heard when i watched The Afterlife Experiments video were not voices that sounded like his own but clearly different voices.

This either raises suspicions of fraud (ie someone in another location is using a radio microphone) or shows that the merging hypothesis isn't solid.

Juan, as i said and will say for the last time, i find mental mediumship plausible, just not seance mediumship.

Hi David, perhaps it isnt solid, no hypothesis is until tested, which isnt easy with this phenomena.

However, ETCs if they follow the merging hypothesis other mediumship, would be expected to vary according to the medium and session in progress. So we will get some that don't sound much like who they are meant to be, while others may be a very close manifestation indeed.


Perhaps, in the case of this particular Italian ETC researcher, the influence of the medium is very slight. Perhaps ETC is more reliable in that something in the mechanism actually minimises distortion by the medium.

If this is the case, then a lot more research should go into ETC as it may have the potential to be the most efficient mode of trans-dimensional communication.

ETC, like all other forms of mediumship appear to require the work of groups on both sides of the veil to make it work. But ETC is perhaps the best option for us as its technological approach appeals to our modern mindset in a way that other approaches don't.

Douglas,

Is ETC the same as ITC--instrumental transcommunication? And what does the "E" stand for?

Thanks!

"i find mental mediumship plausible, just not seance mediumship."

I don't quite understand your point, David R., because the term seance is used in conjunction with all kinds of mediumship, including mental mediumship. Are you saying you find mental mediumship plausible, but not direct voice, physical, and materialization mediumship? Or are you saying you find spontaneous after-death communications plausible (such as a widow hearing her husband's voice), but not any sort of ritualistic session?

BTW, having heard some of Flint's recordings in the past, I also found them unconvincing, though I'm aware that he apparently did pass some fairly stringent tests. One story told about him is that during one session an investigator turned on an infrared device of some kind for a minute or two. Flint had no way of knowing the device had been activated, yet the mysterious voice immediately dropped in volume and became nearly inaudible. The moment the device was switched off, the voice was boosted back to its previous volume. If this story is true, it suggests that something paranormal was going on, whatever it might have been. It also suggests that infrared really does interfere with these phenomena.

But overall I would not point to Flint as a strong case for postmortem survival.

Hi Matt,

I do of course mean ITC! I don't know what the E stands for either!

"But overall I would not point to Flint as a strong case for postmortem survival."

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I usually find that those who are most vociferous in their criticism of Flint's mediumship are those who never attended any of his seances.

Over more than ten years I was a sitter in a small circle of eight sitters which met monthly (sometimes fortnightly) at which everything was tape recorded.

Rarely did I hear any 'famous' people attempt to communicate. The Woods/Greene tapes are usually the ones that are quoted on the website.

Mostly it was ordinary people who returned to their loved ones - for example my grandmother and grandfather communicated and neither sounded anything like Flint.

My grandfather made a point of saying that he liked this form of communication (direct voice) and would not use any other medium.

Although I have sat with many of the best mediums in the world over the last fifty years my grandfather has never communicated through any other medium nor has any medium (mental or physical) ever claiemed that he was present.

On the other hand my grandmother has been with me from the very first sitting I had with a medium and remained always the first communicator till one day she said, "You will not hear from me again my boy my work is finished".

When I expressed disappointment she added that others would come in her place.

This turned out to be absolutely true and remains true to this very day.

ITC is not far from problems either, since the recordings can be faked and there is no way of ascertaining, independenly of the broadcasts of those recordings, whether it is legitimate or not.

Zerdini doesn't address the problems with the Flint recordings but waxes strong about his personal experiences. This is not bad per se, but it shows a distinct lack of skepticism. In the place of someone getting a psychic reading you will notice things that the person having the reading will not notice, even if the information conveyed is conjectural and false in any case, since they have an emotional need to have such things be true. I feel it is the same with Zerdini, though i cannot of course prove such a thing.

What is needed is robust, non-contradictory, objective proof of mediumship in conditions that rule out fraud completely, such as bright light and video taped phenomena that several thousand people can witness at the same time, to make any kind of impact on the collective consciousness. In the absence of this kind of evidence, all we are left with is what we all know already about these things, which is conjectural and non-objective and speculative.

@David R

I feel it is the same with Zerdini, though i cannot of course prove such a thing.

Of course you can't!

"conjectural and false in any case, since they have an emotional need to have such things be true."

That about sums up your posts on here.

You state your opinions as though they are ultimate truth when, in fact, they are just your beliefs.

They carry no weight with me.

David,

"What is needed is robust, non-contradictory, objective proof of mediumship in conditions that rule out fraud completely"

We have that already

Zerdini, Wasn't it scary to hear voices coming out of nowhere? How did Flint stay sane?

I think Leslie Fint provides very good evidence of survival unless one restricts the study of him simply to the recorded voices. The value of Independent Direct Voice, assuming it is genuine, is in the contents of the communication. Sadly, there is very little verifiable evidence in the recordings available online. It wouldn't matter if the voice of Gandhi sounded identical, there is very little survival evidence in mimicry.

The question is then how were these voices produced? What did the people who really knew the ostensible communicators think? What tests were carried out and by whom?

To simply listen to a few recordings and then dismiss the entire body of evidence about the man without proper analysis is hardly rational.

sbu: Zerdini, Wasn't it scary to hear voices coming out of nowhere? How did Flint stay sane?

No more scary than hearing disembodied voices coming out of a speakerphone!

Original Paul: To simply listen to a few recordings and then dismiss the entire body of evidence about the man without proper analysis is hardly rational.

One of the most sensible statements in this debate.

Folks,more and more I read about parapsychology/life after death - more confused I become.I'm used to take mental mediumship as one of the most compelling evidences,but just today I've found that nowdays "mainstream view" in parapsychology that all evidence in favor of an afterlife can be explained within neurology,psychology and ESP.Moreover,I've read ione of the moste distinguished parasychologist,William Roll,he was very well informed about mediumship/apparitions and didn't advocate survival of personality,but rather postulated that "psycho fields" and "memory traces" remain ,and advocated the view that ESP explains mediumship,look here: http://www.aiprinc.org/para-c03_Roll_2006.pdf

To me this explantion seems incomplete at best,but well,I'm not parapsychologist ,and he was...

Then I was surprised that at some bookof survival of consiousness be Lance Storm(2006) other contributers also shared the view of "fields" but not "personality",and in Robert McLuhan page I've even read that there was experiment confirmation for these "fields".
So,I'm confused and baffled.I was going to stick to Alan Gauld,but it seems taht in 1984 William Roll wrote pretty critical review on Gauld's book,precisely because Gauld wrote about survival of personality,what goes exactly contra Roll's theory.

So,the main question is - why survival today so poorly accepted in parapsychology whith all available evidence?Is it because ESP?

But,to my opinion survivalists have such mental mediumistic cases that not any ESP can explain - I pointed yesterday,and today ve'read about such 2 cases by Scott Roggo.

And I'ne never hear non-survivalist talk about Findaly and Randall.

"Ok, yes I believe that when people pass their thinking does not change, and they create their own reality. I also think that we are sent to realms there, of which we are most suited according to our level of development. "

-I'm aware of afterlife communications reporting this kind of thing.

"Personally, I don't feel a Satan or evil would be allowed to exist. But what people conceive of a "hell", is in that realm where those who wish harm or think negatively of others, are caught in an "illusion" of that belief."

-Here I have a bit of a problem. You seem to de-legitimize realities involving Satan, evil, or hell by suggesting either that they don't really exist (Satan/evil), or that they derive from "illusory" beliefs (hell). No problem for this to be your own belief-driven reality, but can it be considered any more valid than Pavel's orthodox Christian reality where they would really exist? A reality is a reality is a reality. The idea of fundamental "good" in the universe could be just as illusory as the idea of living in hell.

It's nice that you're encouraging him to consider changing his belief system, though. Definitely the thing to do.

Agreed tsavo, and I deliberately wrote in terms of "beliefs", as the after world has not been fully verified to me with personal experience.

I certainly don't profess to know it all, but I guess I am lucky as having spirits appear fully formed in front of me with verifiable information, allows me to understand that life exists after death.

Like many here, I have done much reading of near death experiences to come to what I believe of an after life, and although we can't verify with science what they say, I don't think you can rationally discount the huge volumes of experiences of different people.

With regard to my beliefs on evil etc, I have found that if I ask for certain information, at times they will block it, or tell me definitively "No", I'm not allowed to know.

And at these times I can see, that they don't want me to influence others, as this may not be in their best interests or impact them negatively. So that's why I feel, to act untoward in anyway to others, is not allowed. But because people have this belief system when they die, a Satan or evil is only likely to be allowed to exist in realms perpetuated by that illusion, till people come to understand differently.

But like you say, this is my belief, and it is hard to define some of the totality of my experiences in text, which reads like a story, and where the personal may seem meaningless to others.

Cheers Lyn.

Douglas,

You wrote,

||have you ever considered that for a communication to take place, there may have to be a 'merging' to some extent, between the deceased personality, and the medium's personality, to allow communication to take place.||

Sure, I know from my own experience in psi that everything goes through me and my filters to some extent.

Jane Roberts was a channeler. I can understand more of a merging in that case.

With direct voice, I want, well a direct voice. What I hear on the Flint recordings is not some otherworldly-sounding merging of Flint's voice and the deceased's but just Flint doing some funny voices. They sound embarrassingly bad and fake.

Does that mean I think he was a fraud? No. But I don't think these voices are those of the actual people, so something is amiss.

Independent direct voice mediumship is NOT trance.

Flint often joined in the conversations so he was hardly 'doing some funny voices'.

Forming a viewpoint based on a few tape recordings and, as Original Paul pointed out, 'then dismiss the entire body of evidence about the man without proper analysis is hardly rational.'

The comments to this entry are closed.