THE JURY IS OUT AGAIN

An article on Paranormal Review relating to a David Thompson seance

Please have a look

Yes its well out Jock and probably time DT was again challenged. Yet more questions.

Admin wrote:Yes its well out Jock and probably time DT was again challenged. Yet more questions.

An excellent article by Roy Stemman.

Important update:
On Spirit of PN
A number of readers have contacted us to say they’re unable to access Roy Stemman’s blog. I’ve spoken with Roy, who tells me that his web host server has been experiencing technical difficulties over the past few days and has crashed this morning. The cause of the crash is not clear – perhaps it’s the overwhelming interest in his excellent article on David Thompson’s seance!

Admin: For any further updates on Mr Stemman's article or website please go to the Spirit of PN website.

Don't juries first need actual evidence to examine before they can be out?

Wes wrote:Don't juries first need actual evidence to examine before they can be out?

Indeed they do, Wes, which is what is sadly lacking in this case.

Evidence? is that not rather hard to find in a dark room where the materialised spirit is reported as wearing trainers by the way they felt when pressing down on stockinged feet. However evidence and answers are all we have been asking for.

Admin wrote:Evidence? is that not rather hard to find in a dark room where the materialised spirit is reported as wearing trainers by the way they felt when pressing down on stockinged feet. However evidence and answers are all we have been asking for.

Indeed it is!

I am willing to bet that if the light had been switched on the mysterious 'William' would have been found to be David Thompson wearing trainers and the usual excuses would have been trotted out by his supporters.

However, evidence can be given in dark seances e.g. Leslie Flint (the independent direct voice medium).

Now that is a very sceptical view Z Perhaps our friend WCC has merely, since his now long-term association with David Thompson, found that he rather likes the form of shoe invented after his physical lifetime ended and has ectoplasmically created them to wear on special occasions such as when he 'materializes' in the seance room.

As for your point that evidence can be given in a dark seance - such as direct voice - I guess the sceptic would reply that how can anyone know it really is direct voice and not the medium impersonating people since in the darkness no one can see the mediums face to know whether it is them speaking or not.

Of course I personally have no doubt about the integrity of Leslie Flint's mediumship but I am sure the sceptics do.

As for your point that evidence can be given in a dark seance - such as direct voice - I guess the sceptic would reply that how can anyone know it really is direct voice and not the medium impersonating people since in the darkness no one can see the mediums face to know whether it is them speaking or not.

I realise you're probably playing Devil's Advocate here, however, I guess the answer is that the value of independent direct voice is the content of the communication, not whether the voice sounds like the purported communicator (though I would say such sound is important, but insignificant when compared to the actual content). The sound of the voice would increase in importance if the communicator could not have been known by the medium perhaps. How the voice is produced is another matter again - but if shown to be genuine, would not in itself mean the communicator was who they claimed to be.

I might give a good impersonation of Gandhi, say, but would not be able to fool someone who knew him personally sitting in a seance, because I know nothing of their shared memories and experience.

A person may claim to be a close friend of mine and though they might not sound like my friend, if they could converse with me in the same way and make reference to our shared experiences, I would accept their identity.

Lis wrote:Now that is a very sceptical view Z Perhaps our friend WCC has merely, since his now long-term association with David Thompson, found that he rather likes the form of shoe invented after his physical lifetime ended and has ectoplasmically created them to wear on special occasions such as when he 'materializes' in the seance room.

As for your point that evidence can be given in a dark seance - such as direct voice - I guess the sceptic would reply that how can anyone know it really is direct voice and not the medium impersonating people since in the darkness no one can see the mediums face to know whether it is them speaking or not.

Of course I personally have no doubt about the integrity of Leslie Flint's mediumship but I am sure the sceptics do.

I realise you are being facetious, Lis, apart from your last sentence, but many people may not realise that.

Therefore, it is important to point out that Flint was tested using infra red telescopes and throat microphones and still the voices came.

In his public demonstrations, in large halls in London, organised by Noah Zerdin, microphones were placed two feet in front of the cabinet in which Flint sat. The spirit voices spoke into the microphones and were relayed by loudspeakers to the hundreds of people in the hall.

obiwan wrote:As for your point that evidence can be given in a dark seance - such as direct voice - I guess the sceptic would reply that how can anyone know it really is direct voice and not the medium impersonating people since in the darkness no one can see the mediums face to know whether it is them speaking or not.

I realise you're probably playing Devil's Advocate here, however, I guess the answer is that the value of independent direct voice is the content of the communication, not whether the voice sounds like the purported communicator (though I would say such sound is important, but insignificant when compared to the actual content). The sound of the voice would increase in importance if the communicator could not have been known by the medium perhaps. How the voice is produced is another matter again - but if shown to be genuine, would not in itself mean the communicator was who they claimed to be.

I might give a good impersonation of Gandhi, say, but would not be able to fool someone who knew him personally sitting in a seance, because I know nothing of their shared memories and experience.

A person may claim to be a close friend of mine and though they might not sound like my friend, if they could converse with me in the same way and make reference to our shared experiences, I would accept their identity.

Ezcellent points, Obiwan.

It is interesting what a world of difference is contained in a choice of words and how that choice can affect a forum such as this.

We have just had a classic example of this Obiwan quite rightly noted the following of Lis's post above

I realise you're probably playing Devil's Advocate here

Whereas Z made the following comment

I realise you are being facetious, Lis,

One is being positive to stimulate discussion thank you Obi. One is something that most people may well react to adversely that is Z's. comment.

I think they are both well worth looking at to ensure that the way you deal with people on here is appropriate, I do take it Z never intended to be rude but the phraseology is not good.

I raise this as a reminder of the type of behaviour each of us should expect we will receive from others. Its amazing what difference a few words make.


Jim

Lis wrote:

Perhaps our friend WCC has merely, since his now long-term association with David Thompson, found that he rather likes the form of shoe invented after his physical lifetime ended and has ectoplasmically created them to wear on special occasions such as when he 'materializes' in the seance room.

I said that was 'facetious' defined as: "not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark." It was not rude.

I usually choose my words carefully so as not to offend.

Actually Z I don't think I was intending to be facetious, though I suppose since I was attempting to be humourous that might be a word that can be used about what I wrote. For some reason I have always thought the word facetious was implicitly less pleasant than just suggesting someone was being humourous, but if that was not how you intended it I have no problem with what you said.

Certainly my first remark was very tongue in cheek - and intended to convey I found your comment most amusing (in a nice way of course). If I was a betting person I might make a similar bet!

As the the second part of my comments, I was actually not trying to be humourous at all. It is all too true, sadly, that sceptics would argue that what we know as direct voice could be fraudulent since it takes place in the dark, but as Obiwan so aptly pointed out, what indeed Jim and I had a conversation about shortly after I posted, whether the voices do sound like they did when the person was alive or not, it is the content, the evidence that is provided when those spirits communicate through direct voice, that really proves the validity of the communicators.

Actually Obiwan, your comment that someone might be able to give a good impersonation of someone (including Ghandi), but the impersonator would not really be able to fool someone who had actually known the alleged spirit communicator. is particularly apt I think that is why I have so much difficulty with the whole Louis Armstrong, Quentin Crisp, Ghandi communicators that are associated with Thompson's mediumship.

I actually did know the man known as Quentin Crisp and I cannot relate my experience of that person with what purports to be him communicating from the spirit world. It isn't just because the voice doesn't sound right to me, that might be argued a subjective opinion, it is also the content of the performance that this alleged Quentin Crisp comes out with that I am troubled over.

Lis wrote:Actually Z I don't think I was intending to be facetious, though I suppose since I was attempting to be humourous that might be a word that can be used about what I wrote. For some reason I have always thought the word facetious was implicitly less pleasant than just suggesting someone was being humourous, but if that was not how you intended it I have no problem with what you said.

Certainly my first remark was very tongue in cheek - and intended to convey I found your comment most amusing (in a nice way of course). If I was a betting person I might make a similar bet!

As the the second part of my comments, I was actually not trying to be humourous at all. It is all too true, sadly, that sceptics would argue that what we know as direct voice could be fraudulent since it takes place in the dark, but as Obiwan so aptly pointed out, what indeed Jim and I had a conversation about shortly after I posted, whether the voices do sound like they did when the person was alive or not, it is the content, the evidence that is provided when those spirits communicate through direct voice, that really proves the validity of the communicators.

That is quite true, Lis. As I sat for over ten years on a monthly (sometimes weekly) basis with Leslie Flint and tape recorded everything I am arguably in a better position to comment on his mediumship than any sceptic.

I received some remarkable evidence through his mediumship and have often communicated with him and Bram since his passing in 1994.

Lis wrote:Actually Obiwan, your comment that someone might be able to give a good impersonation of someone (including Ghandi), but the impersonator would not really be able to fool someone who had actually known the alleged spirit communicator. is particularly apt I think that is why I have so much difficulty with the whole Louis Armstrong, Quentin Crisp, Ghandi communicators that are associated with Thompson's mediumship.

I actually did know the man known as Quentin Crisp and I cannot relate my experience of that person with what purports to be him communicating from the spirit world. It isn't just because the voice doesn't sound right to me, that might be argued a subjective opinion, it is also the content of the performance that this alleged Quentin Crisp comes out with that I am troubled over.

Lis, you may be interested to know that Quentin Crisp first communicated at a physical seance with Colin Fry long before Thompson annexed him.

He gave his real name adding, to me because I queried the name, "you probably know me better as Quentin Crisp". He gave evidence to someone present who had known him on earth.

He sounded very different to the one who allegedly communicates through Thompson.

It may be an Oz reading of 'facetious' . Here at least (uk), the word is usually used to mean amusing or funny, or to make light of something. At worst it may be used as in 'don't be facetious' in response to a funny remark made in a more solemn discussion. I don't think it has any particularly negative connotations in common usage here anyway.

Thanks for that clarification Obiwan - it is surprising how often words have slightly different connotations in different countries regardless of what the dictinary definition might be.

Well, I always took the word facetious to mean "shit-stirring" if you'll pardon my english Now, I am far too refined to accuse someone like Lis of that sort of behaviour, though I'm not sure she would want to be seen as doing the Devil's work either.

Anyway, back on topic, here is a link to a youtube clip of a dark room "seance" that shows how easy it is to fool people when they can't see.

By the way Jim, the complete episode is abut Helen Duncan and would make a great subject for Sunday discussion group at NASM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvYDkVzn06k&feature=related

Wes wrote:Well, I always took the word facetious to mean "shit-stirring" if you'll pardon my english Now, I am far too refined to accuse someone like Lis of that sort of behaviour, though I'm not sure she would want to be seen as doing the Devil's work either.

Anyway, back on topic, here is a link to a youtube clip of a dark room "seance" that shows how easy it is to fool people when they can't see.

By the way Jim, the complete episode is abut Helen Duncan and would make a great subject for Sunday discussion group at NASM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvYDkVzn06k&feature=related

Wes, I used 'facetious' in the sense of the dictionary definition.

"a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument."

Your link came up with the following:

"This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

Sorry about that."

Facetious has nothing to do with that Wes. Suggest a dictionary..

Wes wrote:

Anyway, back on topic, here is a link to a youtube clip of a dark room "seance" that shows how easy it is to fool people when they can't see.

By the way Jim, the complete episode is abut Helen Duncan and would make a great subject for Sunday discussion group at NASM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvYDkVzn06k&feature=related

Good video Wes, thanks for sharing it!

obiwan wrote:Facetious has nothing to do with that Wes. Suggest a dictionary..

Which "that" are you referring to Obiwan?