Re: Chris Howarth Called Out As A Fraud

by Left Behind Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:27 pm

Scrolling through this old resurrected Thread and seeing the many old names on here had me wondering where THEY are today. Shocked

by mac Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:27 pm

Left Behind wrote:Scrolling through this old resurrected Thread and seeing the many old names on here had me wondering where THEY are today.

I couldn't guess how many formerly active website members - here and elsewhere - are now nowhere to be seen. Many once-familiar names are gone. Maybe they've found out all they once wanted to know or become bored or frustrated searching?

by Admin Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:21 am

Hmm looking back I realise Leroy C, who has posted regularly in this section of the forum, is very experienced on Physical mediumship so I take his comments about Chris H as being very much in line with the critics whilst not denying he may be a nice guy.

by LeroyC Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:11 pm

Hello all,

Admin, thanks for the kind comments !. i don't know about 'experienced', I have just been around a bit, Ie, I have just been "lurking" on here tonight and read some of the comments. Perhaps I can add a few things about this debate, and my current views on the state of physical mediumship ( perhaps it should be in that section, but anyhow ! ).

Firstly, my comments about Chris Haworth stand. I am still amazed he can go on practicing this delusion, but unfortunately Spiritualism is like all religions or followings it has its diehard adherents, and no matter if 'fraud' or doubt' came out and hit them in the face they will still follow the crowd. Quite some time back I was asked to talk at one of the groups 'seminars' In Yorkshire. I agreed, but on reflection gave back word.

I am not proud of that, it is the first time I have done it in all the years I have given talks on this topic ( and some of you may have heard them ! ), but in all honesty I could not be supportive of a mediumship I had serious doubts about. That still stands, sorry Chris, but that's it. I hope he re-evaluates what he is doing.

My doubts about many of the physical mediums of today stems from the 'push', initiated by the old NAS to bring about a resurgence in physical mediumship.

In the early years of that organisation I seriously thought we were on to something, but the outcome, a spate of mediocre so called physical mediums and the old accusations of 'fraud' soon tainted any genuine efforts. Not all are tainted by the same brush however, but it is becoming increasingly hard to justify credibility these days.

It is not helped by so called 'experts' willing to accept all and sundry and everything as being genuine. and the main culprit knows who he is.

I hear with amusement the continuing debate about wanting physical mediumship in nothing but lighted conditions. it would be ideal, but in all seriousness, tell me of any mediums today that can do that or are willing to try ?.

Gone are the days of Carlos Mirabelli and his like. Firstly the possibility of fraud increases in the dark, of course it does; but darkenss does not mean fraud IS taking place. I have seen some marvelous evidence generated in the dark seance, and that is the crux of the matter. ( over and above the thermal camera debate. I cannot se a problem with it but one physical medium objected on the grounds that it could interfere with the phenomena, and myself and a colleague actually had a device with us ! )

I am no longer involved in attending the antics of many so called physical mediums. I have seen some diabolical so called 'demonstrations' of this type of mediumship. One of the most memorable coming from a Mr Caylor some years ago now. In that seance NO personal evidence was presented. That is the issue, where is the PERSONAL survival evidence. it is not sufficient to put on a sound and light show. You need survival evidence.

Look at Leslie Flint ( he operated in the dark, although he gave large public demonstrations in an enclosed 'dark cabinet'...don't see that today do we ? ) Highly tested, he provided first class PERSONAL evidence of survival. I am reminded also of the Rita Goold seances in Syston, where despite heated debates there was clear evidence of personal survival given. I spent many many hours in the company of Barry Jeffery the circle leader and his wife Pat, and with credible sitters like Alan Crossley who testified to the mediumship.

Allan not only spoke to his materialised wife on three consecutive nights, but he sat on the setee with Helen Duncan and had a long conversation about their times together before her passing, He even brought Helens daughter to the seance and they had a long personal conversation.
Of course when test conditions were applied by non other than Maurice Grosse of the SPR he could not get over the fact that a little boy was walking around the room ( Russell Byrne ) when no child was present before the seance ! Michael Roll, despite if you agree with him or not, told me personaly he hugged and spoke to his father, and that it was even his dad's smell !

This issue of personal survival evidence is the crux of the matter. It is important in mental mediumship of course. For those who doubt this you need only read the transcripts of the sittings ( often proxy ones as well ) with mediums such as Gladys Osborne Leonard and Mrs Piper of Boston. The evidence is compelling...but where is it today. If anything in genuine physical medimship there should be, in many cases, little doubt at all about the identity of the spirit communicator who contacts you.

Let us see that then, let us see the sitter reunited with their friends and relatives who have passed. When we start getting genuine evidence of a serious calibre, then my interest may be rekindled...Anyone out there doing that ?

LeroyC

by Admin Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:38 pm

Many thanks Leroy we can always expect a sensible and reasoned response from you.

Anyone out there doing that ? Not that we know of, definitely none with the quality of evidential material you mention.

by Slatewriter Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:06 am

LeroyC wrote:
I am reminded also of the Rita Goold seances in Syston...when test conditions were applied by non other than Maurice Grosse of the SPR he could not get over the fact that a little boy was walking around the room ( Russell Byrne ) when no child was present before the seance !

This was something Michael Roll mentioned recently - that Mr Grosse applied trip wires in Goold's dark seance room, to trick the materialised Russell Byrne. Roll says that young Russell avoided every one ! (I shared this snippet on another thread recently)
For me, the Spirit World can never be caught out !
(Still trying to obtain more on those seances by the way - if you can help... Wink

)

LeroyC wrote: When we start getting genuine evidence of a serious calibre, then my interest may be rekindled...Anyone out there doing that ?

Might I suggest a young Medium in Bristol at the Spirit Lodge. I understand she is able to help bring through great evidence Smile

by LeroyC Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:09 am

Thank you all, and for slatewriters comments.

In relation to the Goold seances there was a wealth of material.

I even had a complete written account of the early seances which we hoped could form the basis of a book. At that time I was too busy in my professional work to do it justice and give time to it; so it was with Pat Jeffrey before she passed.

I think Michael my well be correct with the points he raised. I know a lot of investigation was done, and indeed a number of tape recordings of the sittings made ( of which I think I still have one ! ).

I know Michael has been living in hope ever since for the medium to sit again, but this is not going to happen. I think Rita must be getting on now, and she stopped sitting in part because of some very nasty threats made to her on a personal level which made her fear for her safety.

Don't know much about 'Spirit Lodge' slatewriter. it seems a lot of these seance venues are popping up of late. I will look at this. Many thanks.

LeroyC

by mac Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:29 am

LeroyC wrote:Hello all,

Firstly, my comments about Chris Haworth stand. I am still amazed he can go on practicing this delusion, but unfortunately Spiritualism is like all religions or followings it has its diehard adherents, and no matter if 'fraud' or doubt' came out and hit them in the face they will still follow the crowd. Quite some time back I was asked to talk at one of the groups 'seminars' In Yorkshire. I agreed, but on reflection gave back word.

I don't understand what the last few words of the last sentence mean????

LeroyC wrote:My doubts about many of the physical mediums of today stems from the 'push', initiated by the old NAS to bring about a resurgence in physical mediumship.

In the early years of that organisation I seriously thought we were on to something, but the outcome, a spate of mediocre so called physical mediums and the old accusations of 'fraud' soon tainted any genuine efforts. Not all are tainted by the same brush however, but it is becoming increasingly hard to justify credibility these days.

It is not helped by so called 'experts' willing to accept all and sundry and everything as being genuine. and the main culprit knows who he is.

Is there actual evidence to indicate that the practitioners of today were influenced by - or began developing as a result of - the efforts of the NAS to improve standards of physical mediumship?

LeroyC wrote:I am no longer involved in attending the antics of many so called physical mediums. I have seen some diabolical so called 'demonstrations' of this type of mediumship. One of the most memorable coming from a Mr Caylor some years ago now. In that seance NO personal evidence was presented. That is the issue, where is the PERSONAL survival evidence. it is not sufficient to put on a sound and light show. You need survival evidence.

That's an interesting assertion but the evidence indicates it may not be the prime motivator for other seekers. I've lost count of the number of times I've fallen out with members on other websites when I've also claimed that mediumship is all about providing evidence of survival. For those members mediumship simply meant having contact with discarnates or 'spirits' if you prefer. For those seekers 'spirits' do not necessarily have to have lived in this world hence demonstrating their survival isn't a prerequisite. It's not my personal position incidentally as I'm a fairly traditional, plain-vanilla Spiritualist.

LeroyC wrote:This issue of personal survival evidence is the crux of the matter. It is important in mental mediumship of course. For those who doubt this you need only read the transcripts of the sittings ( often proxy ones as well ) with mediums such as Gladys Osborne Leonard and Mrs Piper of Boston. The evidence is compelling...but where is it today. If anything in genuine physical medimship there should be, in many cases, little doubt at all about the identity of the spirit communicator who contacts you.

Let us see that then, let us see the sitter reunited with their friends and relatives who have passed. When we start getting genuine evidence of a serious calibre, then my interest may be rekindled...Anyone out there doing that ?

LeroyC

In a Spiritualist church or centre setting, then I agree that personal survival is a key issue. Mediumship should demonstrate survival and it doesn't matter which flavour of mediumship we mean. But if practitioners perform elsewhere we Spiritualists should not expect to call the shots. He who pays the piper gets to call the tune.

Seekers of physical phenomena may be perfectly satisfied when they experience them, even in total darkness with the attendant risk of fraud. If those seekers are also happy that 'spirits' have produced them then who are we to say they're wrong to feel happy? BUT the Spiritualist movement is right to dissociate itself from all such demonstrations and one would hope that entrance-fee-charging, fee-paying venues will support the campaign by requiring physical mediumship to be demonstrated in partial light.

Failing that, such performances could be described as 'phenomenalism' and it could be pointed out they don't necessarily indicate evidence of survival.

by LeroyC Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:54 pm

Hello all,

For mac:

Point 1.The expression 'giving back word' relates to a situation in which one promised to do something ( ie, give a lecture ) and then later backs down or refuses.

Point 2. I cannot be sure, but it certainly I felt it started a 'trend', and much developed from this.

Point 3. I am sure personal survival evidence is not the prime motivation for some people. That is up to them. As for spirits not having lived in this world, then how do we know, and how do we establish identity.

It copuld be anyone or no one.( The Phillip seances are a clear example ). Personal survival evidence was cetrtainly a prime motivator for the early SPR investigators, even if it is not today. There is a feeling in some research circles that all mediumship is old hat, been there, done that. That is far from the situation. The main problem is it is quite easy ( and open to fakery ) to be able to channel any 'old entity' and not establish identity. We see a lot of this. I once attended a 'transfiguration seance' at a private circle where the main guide proported to be a soldier from Kaiser Whillhelms army. Apart from the fact he did not have an army as such when I spoke to him in German he was unable to understand a word I was saying. Makes you think that sort of thing !

The issue is that if 'that' spirit survives, the so do your loved ones. I once heard a gude talk about why loved ones do or do not return and a lot of it made sense ie,

They may want to but cannot due to the conditions and opportunities

They do return, and the conditions are right

They have no desire to return to earth conditions

Makes sense, but being an awkward individual I always want to establish identity if possible !

Point 4. Define 'elsewhere' ?. I presume most people who see ( or pay to see ) a medium do so to get survival evidence, but correct me if I am wrong !. Again, if the thrill seekers are happy for the sound and light shows of what passes for them as physical mediumship, fine.

I would advocate they give the business to some of the superb professional magicians which demonstrate such phenomena ( Derren Brown, he puts on a superb show, very impressive and he admits its all fake). This is not mediumship, and so called mediums acting this way do not deserve the title, and may be taking moieis under false pretence.

If they want to demonstrate physical mediumship and survival evidence in full light or partial light fine, but again, lets have the evidence. I entirely agree witrh your last sentence.

Leroy C

by mac Sun Oct 23, 2016 5:32 pm

LeroyC wrote:Hello all,

For mac:

Point 1.The expression 'giving back word' relates to a situation in which one promised to do something ( ie, give a lecture ) and then later backs down or refuses.

thank you - That's a saying I hadn't heard.

LeroyC wrote:Point 2. I cannot be sure, but it certainly I felt it started a 'trend', and much developed from this.

OK - I do remember the effort made to encourage 'home circles' to sit for p.m. and the booklets etc. that were intended to help. It's all a very long time ago now and it's 12 years since the NAS was wound up. I was about to undertake preparing an index for its newsletters at that time.

LeroyC wrote:Point 3. I am sure personal survival evidence is not the prime motivation for some people. That is up to them. As for spirits not having lived in this world, then how do we know, and how do we establish identity.

It copuld be anyone or no one.( The Phillip seances are a clear example ). Personal survival evidence was cetrtainly a prime motivator for the early SPR investigators, even if it is not today.

Yes how would we know if a discarnate did not live in this physical world? But the seekers I referred to don't much care if a spirit communicator didn't! You don't need to persuade me about the situation, though. I see things mostly as other Spiritualists do and have banged the drum for Spiritualism for years. But Spiritualism doesn't have a monopoly on physical mediumship and can't dictate how non-affiliated practitioners behave.

LeroyC wrote:There is a feeling in some research circles that all mediumship is old hat, been there, done that. That is far from the situation.

You can number me as an individual who sees it that way too. Not because I've lost my persuasion about survival and communication through mediumship but because I'm not hearing about the mediumship I like. Maybe if I moved in the right circles I'd see it differently but the impression I've gained from the folk I've met online has persuaded me that the mediumship I recognise doesn't appeal to a generation younger than me - I'm 69. I would LOVE to find I'm wrong but at the moment I ain't seeing it.

LeroyC wrote:The main problem is it is quite easy ( and open to fakery ) to be able to channel any 'old entity' and not establish identity. We see a lot of this. I once attended a 'transfiguration seance' at a private circle where the main guide proported to be a soldier from Kaiser Whillhelms army. Apart from the fact he did not have an army as such when I spoke to him in German he was unable to understand a word I was saying. Makes you think that sort of thing !

Since when have Spiritualists talked about spirit communication as 'chaneling'? Laughing

LeroyC wrote:The issue is that if 'that' spirit survives, the so do your loved ones. I once heard a gude talk about why loved ones do or do not return and a lot of it made sense ie,

They may want to but cannot due to the conditions and opportunities

They do return, and the conditions are right

They have no desire to return to earth conditions

Makes sense, but being an awkward individual I always want to establish identity if possible !

Why would you see yourself as awkward by wishing to establish the identity of a communicator? Wouldn't it be irresponsible not to try? Of course our loved ones survive! Would we be here as Spiritualists discussing this topic if we weren't already persuaded about that? I don't know all the reasons that loved ones don't/can't make their presence known at a seance but even as a dumbo non-medium it's not difficult for me to come up with a list without any need to ponder.

LeroyC wrote:Point 4. Define 'elsewhere' ?. I presume most people who see ( or pay to see ) a medium do so to get survival evidence, but correct me if I am wrong !. Again, if the thrill seekers are happy for the sound and light shows of what passes for them as physical mediumship, fine.

Define elsewhere? Anywhere that's not here! Your presumption about people who see a medium to get survival evidnece is just that - your presumption. It may be most people but I haven't see statistics that show it - have you? I'm not seeking to correct you but you may be wrong in your assumption. And, yes, the thrill-seekers may well be perfectly happy with what they've found whether we see it as physical mediumship or not.

LeroyC wrote:I would advocate they give the business to some of the superb professional magicians which demonstrate such phenomena ( Derren Brown, he puts on a superb show, very impressive and he admits its all fake). This is not mediumship, and so called mediums acting this way do not deserve the title, and may be taking moieis under false pretence.

If they want to demonstrate physical mediumship and survival evidence in full light or partial light fine, but again, lets have the evidence. I entirely agree witrh your last sentence.

Leroy C

I see it that they should do whatever they choose with their time and their money. It's not up to me, not up to you, not up to anyone else for that matter, to tell them what they should do. Practitioners - showmen - are frauds when they're claiming what they do is something else UNLESS they say it's purely for entertainment or is magic. I like Derren Brown. I like David Blane. I like magicians and illusionists. I'll happily pay to be entertained by them. If I wanted to see a physical medium I wouldn't go to any of them or any like them. If we need to tell anyone, anything, it's what they deserve to expect from a physical medium. Not a genuine physical medium because that's tautological - if they're not demonstrating physical mediumship then they're not physical mediums. They're fakers. I had to be careful how I spelled that last word! Very Happy

by Admin Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:57 pm

Interesting report on aChris Howarth Seance supplied by Slatewriter here https://www.spiritualismlink.com/t2387-report-on-recent-chris-howarth-seance#20504

by Sponsored content