Warren Caylor on the move again!

From PM4U Warren writes:

IT IS GREAT NEWS, WE HAVE FOUND A NEW HOME IN SOMERSET, TEN MINUTES FROM THE BEACH. THE PROPERTY COMES WITH 3 SEPEARTE OUT BUILDINGS, ONE OF WHICH WILL BE MADE IN TO A PURPOSE BUILT SEANCE ROOM. ONCE WE HAVE SETTLED, THE HOME SEANCES WILL BE AVAILABLE AGAIN TO THOSE WHO WISH TO ATTEND. IT ALSO MEANS WE CAN CRACK ON WITH THE FILMING PROCESS...BETWEEN THE 19TH JAN AND 10TH FEB WE WILL BE PACKING UP AND MOVING, PLEASE BE PATIENT IF I DO NOT GET BACK TO YOU WITH ANY EMAIL RESPONSES AS THIS IS GOING TO BE A BUSY TIME FOR US

omg shame its not the outer hebrides

He's not there anymore - he walked out on his family and moved to Essex with his new Mrs.

What a great advert Warren is for the current crop of physical mediums on PM4U

Hence my previous question regarding Mediums and their personalities

The question to be answered first is whether W Caylor is a medium, once he has been researched properly we may have an answer, except neither he nor any of the current crop will allow decent research, Physical mediumship, in its professional form, is a belief system at the moment more than a Spiritualist one.

I wonder what you mean by researched properly admin?

I don't think any kind of research will please everybody! They could have full materialisations in day light and someone would still say it wasn't real lol!

AngelCake wrote:I don't think any kind of research will please everybody! They could have full materialisations in day light and someone would still say it wasn't real lol!

Surely the fact that you can't please everyone is no reason for not having any well-controlled research?

Oh no, not at all. Sorry, that wasn't what I meant.
It needs very well controlled research. I look forward to the day when someone agrees to it and actually carries through!

AngelCake wrote:Oh no, not at all. Sorry, that wasn't what I meant.
It needs very well controlled research. I look forward to the day when someone agrees to it and actually carries through!

Just teasing

lol of course Warren walked away from the very friendly test seance whicgh Sue Farrow was organising with a group of supportive specialists in Physical Mediumship.

Realiy says I would love to see light in teh seance room but in teh current situation we clearly will not, despite all the arguments from past greats years ago. Thermography, a scale under the mediums chair, french chalk a wide range of non intrusive controls could be introduced maybe even eradicating the need to use restraints.

Jim

Seems Warren walks away from everything!

Glow in the dark tabs on the medium would be good and totally non invasive!

My partner and I were having a conversation about testing the other day,, Not just testing physical but mental.. hmmm maybe ill start a thread about it.x

I agree with Jim. There has been a great deal of testing applied to physical mediums in the past, by eminent people. So it is clearly possible. Not that that means they are incapable of error of course!

Testing reputable physical mediums is nothing new and there does not seem to have been too much objection to it in the past. At least not from apparently genuine mediums.

Yes we need 'proof' but where does it end?
Time and time again genuine mediums have submitted to tests - with successful results, even the Albert Hall was once filled with over 5000 people as a 300 year old Indian brought a message from the other World. Yet despite the evidence - some still want more tests, more proof... Will anything ever satisfy them? I doubt it.

Its a bit like the motor car - they get tested, then delivered. Some work, some don't - but I don't hear people shouting 'more tests' - 'more proof' that they work'? The simple fact is, the majority do, but some are flawed....

_Leslie_ wrote:Yes we need 'proof' but where does it end?
Time and time again genuine mediums have submitted to tests - with successful results, even the Albert Hall was once filled with over 5000 people as a 300 year old Indian brought a message from the other World. Yet despite the evidence - some still want more tests, more proof... Will anything ever satisfy them? I doubt it.

Its a bit like the motor car - they get tested, then delivered. Some work, some don't - but I don't hear people shouting 'more tests' - 'more proof' that they work'? The simple fact is, the majority do, but some are flawed....

Leslie, who is this 300 year-old Indian guide you write about. The Society for Psychical Research offered to test Estelle Roberts, one of Spiritualisms greatest but she declined the offer. They tested Flint but it wasn't enough, and they wanted more. The SPR had a reputation of being somewhat hostile and less than honest when publishing its findings. Just like we need good honest reputable mediums so do we need good honest reputable researchers, if not, there will never be the happy medium.

It may be that categorical definitive proof which no one can dispute is not be achievable. There will always be those who deny even the strongest evidence eg holocaust deniers.

For the rest of us, perhaps proof has to be provided on a personal basis - I can't remember who said this, perhaps Barbanel(?). This could be tricky given the apparent dearth of decent mediums at present, unless one is lucky. For now, perhaps the best we can do is thoroughly examine the evidence with an open-mind and form our own view.

As an aside, how do we validate a 300 year old Indian?

Mark74 wrote:

_Leslie_ wrote:Yes we need 'proof' but where does it end?
Time and time again genuine mediums have submitted to tests - with successful results, even the Albert Hall was once filled with over 5000 people as a 300 year old Indian brought a message from the other World. Yet despite the evidence - some still want more tests, more proof... Will anything ever satisfy them? I doubt it.

Its a bit like the motor car - they get tested, then delivered. Some work, some don't - but I don't hear people shouting 'more tests' - 'more proof' that they work'? The simple fact is, the majority do, but some are flawed....

Leslie, who is this 300 year-old Indian guide you write about. The Society for Psychical Research offered to test Estelle Roberts, one of Spiritualisms greatest but she declined the offer. They tested Flint but it wasn't enough, and they wanted more. The SPR had a reputation of being somewhat hostile and less than honest when publishing its findings. Just like we need good honest reputable mediums so do we need good honest reputable researchers, if not, there will never be the happy medium.

Hi Mark,

Are you assuming that because a medium (or anyone) declines to be tested that they are fake?

I'm not saying we don't need reputable researchers, what I am saying is that (in my mind) the amount of proof we receive is worthless, because someone always wants 'more' - someone always wants to say it was flawed, or perhaps a better technique or system would be better. The only result that seems to be a valid one for many is a negative one.

Hence my saying "Will anything ever satisfy them? I doubt it."

obiwan wrote:It may be that categorical definitive proof which no one can dispute is not be achievable. There will always be those who deny even the strongest evidence eg holocaust deniers.

For the rest of us, perhaps proof has to be provided on a personal basis - I can't remember who said this, perhaps Barbanel(?). This could be tricky given the apparent dearth of decent mediums at present, unless one is lucky. For now, perhaps the best we can do is thoroughly examine the evidence with an open-mind and form our own view.

As an aside, how do we validate a 300 year old Indian?

I think you've hit it on the head there, for 'personal' proof and validation is without a shadow of a doubt - the best.

Not sure how we validate a 300 year old indian - come to think of it, how do we validate anyone that has past before us?

The indian I believe was called 'Moontrail' and the medium was Horace Hambling.

These may be of some interest -
http://www.granger.com/results.asp?inline=true&image=0045189&wwwflag=1&imagepos=2&screenwidth=1162

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Horace+Hambling&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&recentlyadded=all&sortby=17&sts=t&x=58&y=9

_Leslie_ wrote:

Mark74 wrote:

_Leslie_ wrote:Yes we need 'proof' but where does it end?
Time and time again genuine mediums have submitted to tests - with successful results, even the Albert Hall was once filled with over 5000 people as a 300 year old Indian brought a message from the other World. Yet despite the evidence - some still want more tests, more proof... Will anything ever satisfy them? I doubt it.

Its a bit like the motor car - they get tested, then delivered. Some work, some don't - but I don't hear people shouting 'more tests' - 'more proof' that they work'? The simple fact is, the majority do, but some are flawed....

Leslie, who is this 300 year-old Indian guide you write about. The Society for Psychical Research offered to test Estelle Roberts, one of Spiritualisms greatest but she declined the offer. They tested Flint but it wasn't enough, and they wanted more. The SPR had a reputation of being somewhat hostile and less than honest when publishing its findings. Just like we need good honest reputable mediums so do we need good honest reputable researchers, if not, there will never be the happy medium.

Hi Mark,

Are you assuming that because a medium (or anyone) declines to be tested that they are fake?

I'm not saying we don't need reputable researchers, what I am saying is that (in my mind) the amount of proof we receive is worthless, because someone always wants 'more' - someone always wants to say it was flawed, or perhaps a better technique or system would be better. The only result that seems to be a valid one for many is a negative one.

Hence my saying "Will anything ever satisfy them? I doubt it."

Absolutely not saying that at all. I work as a medium from time to time (semiretired) and was involved with the research carried out by PRISM. I am just making the point that that not all researchers have good intentions. An honest, reputable, open minded researcher is recommended. Some researchers go in with preconceived ideas even before the test is carried out. So I don't blame mediums for being cautious about tests, and researchers.

_Leslie_ wrote:

obiwan wrote:It may be that categorical definitive proof which no one can dispute is not be achievable. There will always be those who deny even the strongest evidence eg holocaust deniers.

For the rest of us, perhaps proof has to be provided on a personal basis - I can't remember who said this, perhaps Barbanel(?). This could be tricky given the apparent dearth of decent mediums at present, unless one is lucky. For now, perhaps the best we can do is thoroughly examine the evidence with an open-mind and form our own view.

As an aside, how do we validate a 300 year old Indian?

I think you've hit it on the head there, for 'personal' proof and validation is without a shadow of a doubt - the best.

Not sure how we validate a 300 year old indian - come to think of it, how do we validate anyone that has past before us?

The indian I believe was called 'Moontrail' and the medium was Horace Hambling.

These may be of some interest -
http://www.granger.com/results.asp?inline=true&image=0045189&wwwflag=1&imagepos=2&screenwidth=1162

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Horace+Hambling&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&recentlyadded=all&sortby=17&sts=t&x=58&y=9

I have heard many recordings of Moontrail from the SAGB. Its a shame he isn't as known as Silver Birch as his teachings were equally profound.

Oops we seem to have strayed off topic .... (interesting though )

I've read more than listened to his recordings, something I hope to remedy soon. It's finding time to fit everything thing in that I have a problem with

Would enjoy hearing more about your time PRISM....

I think we can probably only validate people we know or knew personally, based on the evidence they give to support their identity.

I think we can almost certainly potentially validate that a source of information is genuinely from somewhere other than the medium,however I don't see how we can necessarily be so certain that a claimed identity is in fact correct unless we knew the communicator and had some common experiences.

For sources of inspiration such as those mentioned, I am not sure their true identity matters as much as the message, but IMHO they don't provide evidence of survival per se. Of course that isn't what they were intending anyway in such instances.