Leslie Flint

Hi Vince (that's much easier to write!).
I think you will find very little of the conversation on here has anything to do with this guy.

Oh, I see. I get the feeling that I'm opening a can a worms. If you prefer not to discuss it that's fine with me. I really don't know what the facts are and would probably be better off not delving into it because I'm sure everyone involved has his own side to the story. But judging by the responses to my questions in the COSC forum I know which party is certainly more defensive and sensitive about the whole thing. I suppose having the gift of mediumship does not automatically make one free of the human ego.

Getting back on topic. Yes, of course you're right that a good ventriloquist doesn't need the dark to hide what he's doing. I suppose I was thinking that a poor ventriloquist might, or someone who is skilled at projecting his voice to make it appear that it is coming from another part of the room. Anyway, a person who has not experienced authentic direct voice phenomena is at a distinct disadvantage and can only resort to second hand questioning of the reported event. Unfortunately, for the time being, that's the category I fall into.

lyfsagerny wrote:Getting back on topic. Yes, of course you're right that a good ventriloquist doesn't need the dark to hide what he's doing. I suppose I was thinking that a poor ventriloquist might, or someone who is skilled at projecting his voice to make it appear that it is coming from another part of the room. Anyway, a person who has not experienced authentic direct voice phenomena is at a distinct disadvantage and can only resort to second hand questioning of the reported event. Unfortunately, for the time being, that's the category I fall into.

Ventriloquism is commonly called in English the ability to "throw" one's voice.
However, the term "throwing one's voice" is misleading, because it implies that a sound's physical origin has changed, when really the change has been perceptual and not physical. It is basically an illusion to the ear.
It uses a puppet to direct the viewer’s eyes over to the false source of the sound which is why it cannot work in the dark.

I sympathise with you regarding the direct voice - it is still a rare ability in mediumship. Many who testify to having heard the independent direct voice confuse it with trance utterances. There is an alarming lack of knowledge of physical mediumship even among Spiritualists. Physical phenomena mediums are not materialisation nor direct voice mediums. I have heard people claim to have been touched or felt a hand on their face or heard footsteps in the room or someone banging on the floor. All very interesting but not evidence of individual survival.

We may keep our head in the clouds but our feet should remain firmly on the ground.

Can you briefly explain the differences between a physical phenomena medium and a materialization medium? Thank you.

lyfsagerny wrote:Can you briefly explain the differences between a physical phenomena medium and a materialization medium? Thank you.

When Davd Thompson asked me this question I replied as follows:

"What do I mean by materialisation?

"I mean the production of walking, talking evidential full form materialisations of people, who once lived on earth, seen by all present, in good light.

"Full form materialisation has always been a very rare gift and is generally regarded as the finest and most evidential form of physical mediumship."

A physical phenomena medium is someone who simply produces physical phenomena.

Physical phenomena can include any or all of the following: Production of ectoplasm, production of apports, raps, knocks and bangs, levitation, trance speaking, direct spirit writing etc.

I see. Thanks for the clarification. You have also stated previously that you consider direct voice more evidential than materialization. Yet, I cannot imagine anything more evidential than the full form, speaking materialization of spirits that occurred through Alec Harris, as you yourself have described and experienced.

Sadly materialisation mediums are usually found once in a lifetime whereas the direct voice can be obtained in one's own home circle if a a harmonious mix of people get together.

Really? A direct voice medium is that much more common? Then there must be one somewhere in the New York area.

lyfsagerny wrote:Really? A direct voice medium is that much more common? Then there must be one somewhere in the New York area.

Undoubtedly. They've had them in the past so there's no reason why they won't be there in the future.

Wonderful. I'll look for one. Thanks.

I had no preconceived opinion about DT. Actually, to be fully accurate, I did have a positive expectation about him based on what I read on the VZ website. So, it comes as a real surprise to me that he chooses to act so defensively about a completely reasonable question. Obviously if the "William Cadwell" spirit did not voluntarily provide his identity to begin with then I could fully understand that it might be plausible that the spirit wishes to remain anonymous for whatever reason he may have. But after he himself gives the information, to castigate those who dare to verify it seems entirely "unspiritual" to me.

Thanks Vince and keep up your contributions on here they are creating valuable and interesting discussion.

Having just stumbled upon the Flint recordings I was at first fascinated The messages seemed convincing but after listening to different speakers I quickly realised the voices all had a very similar quality. Similar vocabulary, pitch and intonation. Most of the men's voices have a breathy nasal quality and the same British accent prevalent at the time. The voice of Mickey is clearly an adult trying to sound like a child and as for the women's voices - well Barry Humphries does a better job as Dame Edna. As for Marilyn Monroe, well that was just a joke - there is nothing convincing about that recording and it ends up being a parody.
I'm not just another sceptic trying to dismiss it all as nonsense, however there is nothing convincing in the quality of the recordings themselves. Why would an ancient Egyptian come back speaking English with a British accent? Listen to Rabrindranath Tagore and the Chinese man. Both sound more like someone with a bad imitation French accent. Likewise Maurice Chevalier. How can anyone accept them as genuine?

Alanc, I had the exact same reaction when I first listened to Flint's recordings too. I thought I was reading my own post before I realized it was someone else (you) who had posted it. Anyway, not to make excuses, some of the things you mentioned can be explained by the fact that the spirit entities must fashion a voice box with ectoplasm using Flint's larynx as a model since they no longer have a physical body. So there is always a similar tone to the voice. The similarity in breathing patterns I find a little harder to explain. However, there are members here who firmly believe that the voices are very different. So, I suppose it's a matter of opinion.

Here are just two views of Leslie Flint's mediumship:

George Bernard Shaw's spirit communication was verified by his close friend George Bishop, the Daily Telegraph's dramatic critic, with: “The mind and the mood are Shaw's.”

Conan Shaw, a well known psychical researcher who knew Dr. Lang listened to the tape and wrote:

“After hearing and studying this tape I should like to place the following on record: As a chorister in York Minster (1908-15) I had many opportunities of coming into direct contact with Dr. Lang. On a number of special occasions I was chosen to carry the Archbishop's train. His slow style of speech comes out well on the tape as do his mannerisms. Both hands would clasp the top of his stole, then he would build up to a climax on one word or one phrase as he does on the tape to the word NOW and the phrase 'then they shall stand up in the Church and proclaim it' (this refers to (Spiritualistic) Communication). His head would turn left to right, then right to left and centre observantly getting his three points home to the whole congregation.

“Yes I have every confidence it is Dr. Cosmo Lang who is the communicator as he claims to be on the tape.”

(signed) Conan Shaw
Shaw

I'm not convinced by the Flint tapes at all, however I'm keeping an open mind. Having never witnessed ectoplasm being produced I don't feel I can comment with any authority. However, the idea that they're all using the same ectoplasmic voicebox is hardly a plausible explanation for the similarity in the voices as some clearly are different - male vs female for example. Somehow the idea of the long dead returning and - in some cases - speaking with decidedly elderly voices is too implausible, it's as if the after death state is one in which personalities are somehow frozen in time only to be reawakened in a seance. Charles Dickens, long dead, still very much Charles Dickens, Ghandi still speaking with that accent. If the tapes had just been ordinary people recently passed over they might have been believable. But the idea of personalities remaining for decades let alone centuries is surely too naive. Surely, if indeed we do continue, there is a return to our essence and personality is ultimately shed.
I stumbled upon the Flint tapes via another website - Afterlife communications - having listened to a recording of a seance with David Thompson in Auckland in which he was supposedly taken over by Quentin Crisp. Likewise that was embarrassingly unconvincing. I easily found recordings of Quentin on Youtube and there was no comparison between his voice and the exaggeratedly camp tones of Quentin a la David Thompson.

However, I don't say all this as a sceptic of the possibility of communication with the next world. I became obsessed with spiritualism when I was about 12 - 46 years ago - and it was then that I read a little book published here in New Zealand called, if I remember rightly, the Blue Room. I wonder if anyone else has ever come across it. I've tried to find reference to it on internet but to no avail. It was written by a man who lived in Dunedin and was a record of direct voice communication involving his niece and a small group of "sitters". At first communication was via automatic writing but developed into direct voice via the piano. Somehow voices would come through on resonating notes played on the piano by the niece, I think. It got to the stage whereby they were able to dispense with the piano completely. This was the first time I read about what the communicating entities called rescue work, trying to convince people - often soldiers as it was wartime - that they had died. They would be brought along to talk to the "living"". The book was convincing in its simplicity and I would love to reread it to see what I would think now as an adult in the year 2010.

Alanc, another book you might enjoy is one recommended to me by zerdini called "Alec Harris-The full story of his remarkable physical mediumship." Here was a man, Alec Harris, who never wanted to be a medium and did not even believe in them before he became aware of his own abilities. Fascinating reading and historically verifiable.

I think it is difficult to form a final view on the Flint sittings unless the purported speakers are known to us personally.

I have listened to quite a few of them and leaving on one side the questions of breathing rates and commonalities in voices, unless I knew the person speaking it would be difficult to know whether I was speaking to the same person or not. Even if the voices were identical, one might consider it is the content as much as the voice, perhaps more so, that is important. It is maybe also important to consider the responses to questions posed, the fluency and nature of responses etc. Flint is an interesting phenomenon and was widely tested. He was never, as far as I can see, accused of fraud by anyone in a position to make such a claim.

Our voices change all the time depending on our physical condition and throughout our lives. A friend I lost contact with at 16 said my voice and accent had changed completely and he would never have guessed it was me when we next spoke 25 years later. If I was asked to speak like I did when I was 20 I would find that difficult, perhaps the problem in part is that the speakers are trying to remember how they spoke when alive, and perhaps even old and infirm, and using a piece of equipment that is foreign to them. Who knows? I recall hearing a recording which touched of the problems speakers using Independent Direct Voice report - the complex process included: remembering their own voice; using the voicebox mechanism; eliminating thoughts from sitters and the medium, and, keeping focused on the subject at hand to name a few. Maybe the problems are with the equipment as much as the speaker.

To me, what is said is more important than perfect reproduction of the voice. If fraud is eliminated, where are the voices coming from? If we did not know the speaker personally, I don't really see how we can determine whether the speaker is the person claimed or not, no matter how good or bad the voice seems to us.

May I second the book on Alec Harris recommended by Lyfs/Zerdini - it is most interesting.

A Well written and thoughtful reply Obi. I like you have listened to many of them, but not knowing them personally, I could not and would not say it was or was not who they say they are. However, I do trust Z's word on this subject though, as I know he sat with Leslie Flint for many years, and I am sure that there were many people who spoke, whom he would have heard or even spoke to in their life time.

Thank's Zandorf for your kind comments

I trust Zerdini's judgement and word in these matters too. Unfortunately, it is beyond my boggle limit and the implications are so enormous that it is a phenomenon I would have to witness personally to be 100% certain no matter how reliable the reporter.

For me, the most compelling evidence of Flint's authenticity are the many tests conducted on him which would be practically impossible to defeat. In particular, I read of one test where he was required to hold a measured amount of a particular fluid in his mouth while bound and gagged. Voices were still clearly heard throughout the seance and when it was over Flint was un-gagged and he expelled the exact amount and type of fluid that was originally placed in his mouth. Now if a skeptic can offer a reasonable alternative explanation for that one I would be quite surprised.

AlanC -

and it was then that I read a little book published here in New Zealand called, if I remember rightly, the Blue Room. I wonder if anyone else has ever come across it. I've tried to find reference to it on internet but to no avail.

I have this book in my possession. It's called "The Blue Room" and is by Clive Chapman. The medium was his niece, Pearl Judd.

It can be downloaded free here:

http://survivalebooks.org/#The%20Blue%20Room

If you want to read about Leslie Flint I recommend the website: www.leslieflint.com

Thanks for that everyone, very interesting

Thank you Zerdini! Wow, that's amazing. I've just downloaded the Blue Room so am about to make a cup of tea and sit down and read it after all those years. How exciting. I'll let you know what I think.