Re: Who or What is David Thompson's 'William"?

by Wes Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:21 pm

Absolutely Obiwan, in regards to the how, I don't know if someone is getting their information though psychic means, mediumship, trickery, or guesswork - so the hit/miss score is one way I can use to help fill those gaps in knowledge. The more things a medium gets right and the more things they say that aren't generalised, then the more comfortble I'd be accepting that their information is coming from spirit.

Another gauge is how the information is presented. One exchange from the event I mentioned went like this:

Medium: Your father is in spirit?

Audience member: no

Medium: Your uncle is in spirit?

Audience member: no

Medium: Your brother is in spirit?

Audience member: yes

Medium: Ah, I thought it was your brother..

If you just take the last bit then the medium was spot on, but if you look at the whole exchange it paints a different picture and even if the medium actually was in contact with the deceased brother, you'd have your doubts about how the medium got their information.

So a medium's method is important and as mentioned above, saying "I have Emily here, does anyone know an Emily?" is not a terribly convincing way for a medium to operate.

by Admin Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:02 am

Waller wrote:
obiwan wrote:Fair comment. It might not be as much of a stretch as you'd think but I take your points.
What are the pure statistics on this event happening by chance?

In this case Waller supposedly the "materialised" Tim is saying I have an Emily here. The first person to grab the name is Scott Milligan a very close friend and long term associate of David so the message would have been taken. Nick then speaks up.

This is the now "traditional" fishing net approach to mediumship. Throw a name out and wait for a bite. It why the Sceptics call mediumship cold reading.

Now this begs a question Tim is a Spirit Guide he should know who the message is for and go directly to them. So far I have never, in any circumstances, heard of a guide communicating using the fishing net mediumship style.

That is why I have to say this is no White Crow and none of the accepted messages seem to have any genuine reason to be taken as that either, especially when you study the events in detail and the cross reference to comments like Roy Stemman's .

by obiwan Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:04 am

Admin wrote:
Now this begs a question Tim is a Spirit Guide he should know who the message is for an go directly to them. So far I have never, in any circumstances, heard of a guide communicating using the fishing net mediumship style.

i agree even if it isn't fishing, it looks like it.

by Admin Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:00 am

Ah yes that is mental mediumship Waller but the Emily issue was supposedly a Spirit Guide communicating as a materialised entity while Mr Thompson was in trance.

Seperately Gordon Higginson, was in his early days suspected of gathering material before a demonstration. For a number of years, until they subsequently became friends, Maurice Barbanell, the then editor of Psychic News (and Two Worlds), would not allow articles about him. These interesting articles can be found here and the second was published in Two Worlds while Barbanell was editor.
http://psypioneer.iapsop.com/psypioneer_v6_n4_apr_2010.pdf
http://psypioneer.iapsop.com/psypioneer_v6_n5_may_2010.pdf
Now the time I saw him and one of the messages he gave was pure mediumship. However I always wonder if some mediums have something in their back pocket for the times when they cannot connect, there are few like Albert Best who would cancel a big demonstration.

by mac Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:36 pm

Waller wrote:
Wes wrote:Absolutely Obiwan, in regards to the how, I don't know if someone is getting their information though psychic means, mediumship, trickery, or guesswork - so the hit/miss score is one way I can use to help fill those gaps in knowledge. The more things..........
So a medium's method is important and as mentioned above, saying "I have Emily here, does anyone know an Emily?" is not a terribly convincing way for a medium to operate.

Here is where a thorough understanding of a particular medium is highly relevant.

In conversation with dozens upon dozens of mental mediums, watching countless ones who I know are genuine, they have different styles of expressing the images from spirit, resolving the symbolisms and understanding incomplete telepathic communications. Some MMs are chatty, some are expressive, others not so. Higginson for instance did a lot of what might be called fishing especially on platform. Often this is where the realities of cold reading and the realities of spirit communications get mired.

I've read glowing accounts of Gordon Higginson's mediumship but on the one and only occasion that he demonstrated at my local centre I was very disappointed.

Perhaps naively I'd expected he'd move around the full hall and speak to many more than he actually did. What I found was that he spent much time with church members who quite clearly he knew well. It might well have been good communication but it wasn't good mediumship. Even the inexperienced mac could see how few discarate contacts he actually made and how much time he spent with folk he was obviously familiar with. I left the church feeling very disillusioned with what I'd seen.

It feels almost disloyal to speak that way about such a towering figure in Spiritualism.

by obiwan Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:41 pm

mac wrote:
Waller wrote:
Wes wrote:Absolutely Obiwan, in regards to the how, I don't know if someone is getting their information though psychic means, mediumship, trickery, or guesswork - so the hit/miss score is one way I can use to help fill those gaps in knowledge. The more things..........
So a medium's method is important and as mentioned above, saying "I have Emily here, does anyone know an Emily?" is not a terribly convincing way for a medium to operate.

Here is where a thorough understanding of a particular medium is highly relevant.

In conversation with dozens upon dozens of mental mediums, watching countless ones who I know are genuine, they have different styles of expressing the images from spirit, resolving the symbolisms and understanding incomplete telepathic communications. Some MMs are chatty, some are expressive, others not so. Higginson for instance did a lot of what might be called fishing especially on platform. Often this is where the realities of cold reading and the realities of spirit communications get mired.

I've read glowing accounts of Gordon Higginson's mediumship but on the one and only occasion that he demonstrated at my local centre I was very disappointed.

Perhaps naively I'd expected he'd move around the full hall and speak to many more than he actually did. What I found was that he spent much time with church members who quite clearly he knew well. It might well have been good communication but it wasn't good mediumship. Even the inexperienced mac could see how few discarate contacts he actually made and how much time he spent with folk he was obviously familiar with. I left the church feeling very disillusioned with what I'd seen.

It feels almost disloyal to speak that way about such a towering figure in Spiritualism.

The only thing you owe Gordon Higginson, Mac, is honesty. You must speak as you find.

by obiwan Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:46 pm

Waller wrote:
Admin wrote:
Seperately Gordon Higginson, was in his early days suspected of gathering material before a demonstration. For a number of years, until they subsequently became friends, Maurice Barbanell, the then editor of Psychic News (and Two Worlds), would not allow articles about him. These interesting articles can be found here and the second was published in Two Worlds while Barbanell was editor.
http://www.woodlandway.org/PDF/PP6.4.April2010..pdf
http://www.woodlandway.org/PDF/PP6.5.May2010..pdf
Higginson had his own set of personal issues with other mediums and was known for not allowing this medium or that medium from demonstrating where he was in authority.

If Barbanell changed his mind them one must assume he was right or wrong about Higginson at least once or...

Now the time I saw him and one of the messages he gave was pure mediumship. However I always wonder if some mediums have something in their back pocket for the times when they cannot connect, there are few like Albert Best who would cancel a big demonstration.

...since medium's are human there should be allowances for mediumship fraud without throwing out the entire mediumship experience. Imagine where we would be if you take Palladino, Duncan, Higginson, and dozens of others and rejected their mediumship over either allegations or proof of fraud?

I take the position that there is every possibility and certainty that some unknown amount of the present and past day mediums are/were engaging in fraudulent devices. The reasons would be many with the primary one is that they all mediums are inherently fallible.

I can't see any other position as tenable or realistic.

As far as I can see mediums stand or fall by the quality of their evidence and the provenance of it. I agree that even if a medium is clearly found to be fraudulent in one instance then it doesn't mean this is always the case. In the case of Palladino, one could argue that knowing she might use fraudulent methods the investigators would be fore-warned.

by mac Wed Jul 02, 2014 7:12 am

Waller wrote:
mac wrote:

I've read glowing accounts of Gordon Higginson's mediumship but on the one and only occasion that he demonstrated at my local centre I was very disappointed.

Perhaps naively I'd expected he'd move around the full hall and speak to many more than he actually did. What I found was that he spent much time with church members who quite clearly he knew well. It might well have been good communication but it wasn't good mediumship. Even the inexperienced mac could see how few discarate contacts he actually made and how much time he spent with folk he was obviously familiar with. I left the church feeling very disillusioned with what I'd seen.

It feels almost disloyal to speak that way about such a towering figure in Spiritualism.
That's too bad, mac, I understand how you might feel that way after having such a poor, personal experience. Now I understand your penchant for wanting rain checks.

quite! In fairness I hadn't paid anything like the absurd attendance charges we hear about nowadays and I did hear some uplifting philosophy as part of the demonstration so overall it wasn't bad value. Thankfully my disappointment with the mediumship didn't color my outlook too much and I'm still here and doin' alright....

by obiwan Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:23 am

mac wrote:
Waller wrote:
mac wrote:

I've read glowing accounts of Gordon Higginson's mediumship but on the one and only occasion that he demonstrated at my local centre I was very disappointed.

Perhaps naively I'd expected he'd move around the full hall and speak to many more than he actually did. What I found was that he spent much time with church members who quite clearly he knew well. It might well have been good communication but it wasn't good mediumship. Even the inexperienced mac could see how few discarate contacts he actually made and how much time he spent with folk he was obviously familiar with. I left the church feeling very disillusioned with what I'd seen.

It feels almost disloyal to speak that way about such a towering figure in Spiritualism.
That's too bad, mac, I understand how you might feel that way after having such a poor, personal experience. Now I understand your penchant for wanting rain checks.

quite! In fairness I hadn't paid anything like the absurd attendance charges we hear about nowadays and I did hear some uplifting philosophy as part of the demonstration so overall it wasn't bad value. Thankfully my disappointment with the mediumship didn't color my outlook too much and I'm still here and doin' alright....

Oddly perhaps, I think such experiences can actually be valuable as they sometimes act as a sense check on our own enthusiasm and help us to be more circumspect in forming firm opinions.

by mac Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:42 pm

obiwan wrote:
mac wrote:
Waller wrote:
mac wrote:

I've read glowing accounts of Gordon Higginson's mediumship but on the one and only occasion that he demonstrated at my local centre I was very disappointed.

Perhaps naively I'd expected he'd move around the full hall and speak to many more than he actually did. What I found was that he spent much time with church members who quite clearly he knew well. It might well have been good communication but it wasn't good mediumship. Even the inexperienced mac could see how few discarate contacts he actually made and how much time he spent with folk he was obviously familiar with. I left the church feeling very disillusioned with what I'd seen.

It feels almost disloyal to speak that way about such a towering figure in Spiritualism.
That's too bad, mac, I understand how you might feel that way after having such a poor, personal experience. Now I understand your penchant for wanting rain checks.

quite! In fairness I hadn't paid anything like the absurd attendance charges we hear about nowadays and I did hear some uplifting philosophy as part of the demonstration so overall it wasn't bad value. Thankfully my disappointment with the mediumship didn't color my outlook too much and I'm still here and doin' alright....

Oddly perhaps, I think such experiences can actually be valuable as they sometimes act as a sense check on our own enthusiasm and help us to be more circumspect in forming firm opinions.

I guess so but I was simply an interested observer rather than someone enthusisastic to witness and understand mediumship. For others it might have been off-putting if they had expected - as I also had - to hear from more spirit contacts for more recipients of evidential messages.

Thankfully I'd done my formative stuff by the time all that happened and was unlikely to be influenced whatever the outcome.

by mac Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:48 pm

Waller wrote:
mac wrote:

quite! In fairness I hadn't paid anything like the absurd attendance charges we hear about nowadays and I did hear some uplifting philosophy as part of the demonstration so overall it wasn't bad value. Thankfully my disappointment with the mediumship didn't color my outlook too much and I'm still here and doin' alright....
How much did you pay and when?

Gordon passed in 1993 so it's even further back than I realised - perhaps 1990 or 1991. Jesus what a long time! I don't have a clue what it cost but probably no more than ca $15-20.

by Mark74 Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:09 pm

Wouldn't it be interesting if a photograph of David Thompson's Spirit friend, the now "Prof. William Caldwell" could be obtained. It would be very interesting to see if it matched David's accepted psychic artist impression of his now "Prof. David Caldwell"

by Lis Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:15 am

Hi Mark74,

It would indeed be interesting if a photograph of the current 'William' could be obtained. It would be equally interesting to see a photograph of the real Professor William (no Charles) Caldwell (not Cadwell) born in Scotland (not England) who went to America and eventually to Canada (never lived in or dying in England) to compare with the psychic impression of 'William'. Such a photograph is indeed being sought at this very time. We shall see what comes of that.

by Lis Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:56 am

Waller has, on several occasions kindly drawn our attention to his blog. I found time today to take a look and there is much that is most interesting. One particular entry, dated March 5, 2014, I found particularly relevant. Admittedly, the post titled 'Testing Channeled Communications - A Local Séance,' begins with a focus of the channelling of supposed Advanced Entities' (AEs) by new age adherents, however, Waller's comments do seem to be also pertinent to the issue raised on this thread.

I hope Waller will not mind my quoting some excerpts from his blog. The full post can be read by going to http://wallerjoelDOTcom/

Having outlined what Waller thinks AEs are, he notes that they may or may not be of a higher moral nature or intent, e.g., "AEs can be well intentioned or ill intentioned. They can be helpful or fail to be so. It is not unusual to have trickster AEs overstating their actual knowledge set or allowing their status to be overstated. A dishonest spirit will blend a touch of positive information and a truckload of negative disinformation. Too often this mixed information is gobbled up whole as absolute fact . . ." Waller notes, "This idea of misplaced trust would appear to be obvious yet in the face of trance states, darkened séance rooms and extranormal AEs people.(sic) Not the case. Attendees (sitters) all to often are eyes frozen-in-awe wide open and Eyes Wide Shut simultaneously."

The thrust, however, of his post, and a point well-worth supporting is "the requirement for mandatory testing of spirits, channelers and mediums before any trust is handed out to the messages they bring." Waller places much reliance on the work of Alan Kardec, the Spiritist, in arguing that "channel, medium and spirit must be thoroughly examined." He also makes an important point when he comments, "Phenomena is phenomena and nothing more. If your primary focus is survival of consciousness evidence aka the survival hypothesis AEs who fail to provide that evidence although interesting are backburner paranormalia."

Waller then quotes Kardec:
"It is easy to distinguish between good and bad spirits. The language of spirits of Higher elevation is constantly dignified, noble, characterised by the highest morality, free from every trace of earthly passion; their counsels breathe the purest wisdom, and always have our improvement and the good of mankind for their aim. The communications of spirits of lower degree, on the contrary, are full of discrepancies, and their language is often commonplace, and even coarse. If they sometimes say things that are good and true, they more often make false and absurd statements, prompted by ignorance or malice.”

In Waller's experience Kardec's advice has been "solid and true." He invites people "to give it a go."

Indeed, we should "give it a go." We should test the spirits, we should test the mediums. We should ask questions when the channelled or trance material purporting to be delivered by a spirit is false, or inconsistent or flawed in some other way. We should ask who or what is that purported spirit and what is their motive and intentions. We should do all that before we place any reliance or trust in that spirit or their communications.

Of course, we should also test the medium in this situation. They may, indeed, be entirely sincere in their belief in the apparent 'spirit.' They may have the best of intentions in allowing themselves to be a vehicle for that 'spirit's' communications. Nevertheless, they should be open to challenge when the apparent spirit communicator fails to stand up to scrutiny. Though their investment may be great, no genuine medium would, I am sure, want to continue to support communications from entities that don't live up to expectations, who provide false information about themselves or their earthly life, that don't provide real evidence of their survival.

by Admin Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:38 am

That link to Waller's blog would not work for me but people may find it from here and get an idea of the interests Waller has http://wallerjoel.typepad.com/blog/

Here is the one Lis quoted http://wallerjoel.typepad.com/blog/2014/03/testing-channeled-communications-a-local-seance.html

I rather love the quote at the bottom of that piece, from our old friend George Cranley "Mediums don't need to be tested if they provide convincing evidence of survival". ~George "Zerdini" Cranley, President of the Noah's Ark Society and author of Zerdini's World

I wonder if Waller realises just how much Mr Thompson and George dislike each other because of George's position against David's work (and Kai's work too)

by Sponsored content