A Footnote To The Footnote
Jan. 9th, 2009 11:45 amMy friend
pickwick points out that Helen Duncan was investigated by the psychic researcher Harry Price, who proved her to be a particularly squalid fraud. Unbelievably the Robinson programme managed to convey the impression that Price had given Duncan a clean bill of health.
Duncan's ectoplasm was regurgitated cheesecloth. It's extraordinary that her effects should ever have fooled anybody (just consider the photographs in Price's article) but they did.
I once attended a seance in the Duncan tradition. The medium sat in a cabinet, under a red light and spoke in the voices of a succession of dead people- none of whom had anything interesting to say. Ailz says her grandfather came through, addressing her by a name only he ever used. There was no cheesecloth, but people said the medium's face changed as the different spirits took control. I couldn't see it myself.
We gave the medium a lift home afterwards. She was an odd personality- nervy, vulnerable and confiding- who believed- apparently quite sincerely- that she was some sort of a space alien. Knowing we were pagans, she told us a story about how she'd once had pagan friends to visit and they'd done a ritual in an upstairs room while she stayed in the living room- and she'd looked up from her armchair to see a huge man with horns and goat's feet peering round the door at her- whom she left it to us to identify as the Great God Pan.
The seance we attended was for free- for her "friends"- but I think she usually charged. Apparently she had a big following in Finland.
Duncan's ectoplasm was regurgitated cheesecloth. It's extraordinary that her effects should ever have fooled anybody (just consider the photographs in Price's article) but they did.
I once attended a seance in the Duncan tradition. The medium sat in a cabinet, under a red light and spoke in the voices of a succession of dead people- none of whom had anything interesting to say. Ailz says her grandfather came through, addressing her by a name only he ever used. There was no cheesecloth, but people said the medium's face changed as the different spirits took control. I couldn't see it myself.
We gave the medium a lift home afterwards. She was an odd personality- nervy, vulnerable and confiding- who believed- apparently quite sincerely- that she was some sort of a space alien. Knowing we were pagans, she told us a story about how she'd once had pagan friends to visit and they'd done a ritual in an upstairs room while she stayed in the living room- and she'd looked up from her armchair to see a huge man with horns and goat's feet peering round the door at her- whom she left it to us to identify as the Great God Pan.
The seance we attended was for free- for her "friends"- but I think she usually charged. Apparently she had a big following in Finland.
interesting
Date: 2009-01-09 03:37 pm (UTC)I read some of the sceptics' sites and they seem to do a great job debunking people - but I find it unlikely that every single medium who goes into the art in a big way is maintaining some massive lie that is known but not spoken of.
I think the brain has aptitudes that it can be hard to explain to other people. I've mentioned before on my blog that I have absolute pitch. Which results in a circular discussion: "But how do you know it's an A?" "Er, because it sounds like one." I can't imagine what it's like not to have that knowledge (not that I'm always right, but generally close) and have songs not index linked to their keys when I retrieve them from my brain.
The medium Gordon Smith says his experience is like "downloading" a pile of messages. Sometimes he confuses his own thoughts with spirit activity and admits this too, though he says he can tell the difference better now.
Re: interesting
Date: 2009-01-09 04:45 pm (UTC)I like what Gordon Smith has to say. Psychics don't know it all. They pick up information from all sorts of sources- and much of it is muddled and unclear. I believe the woman we saw in action was sincere and had real psychic gifts. I also think she was mentally fragile.
I believe professional psychics are showmen and- because the spirits can't always be relied on to come through or make sense- sometimes fall back on cold reading and other tricks of the trade. But I find it hard to believe that a person would embark on such a career without first possessing some sort of psychic spark.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 06:35 pm (UTC)Re: interesting
Date: 2009-01-09 09:03 pm (UTC)sometimes things do get muddled.... that usually when I am trying to hard...but I can only pass on what I am told... if it makes sense ,, then that;s good... if not then - well i can't and won't change it...sometimes it clicks with ppl later.
when i was a chritian I saw ppl then, at times I got 'messages' and i passed them on, and realised that some thought i was possessed.. have very intersting debates with a few funides I 'knew'
at prayer meetings I saw angels... and lights...which seemed to be ok as far as other Xns where concerned, and , i went to a meeting where someone talked in tounges and another stood up to translate.. but what he said I knew as as not what the guy speaking in tounges had said,,,lol...
wasn;t my church - so didn't want to rock the boat...
i don't fit with the spiritulaist church as I won't accept Godde as father only.. and not with partiachally based and ruled orders
opppsss have to go as watching around the world in 80's faiths...
Re: interesting
Date: 2009-01-09 10:23 pm (UTC)Re: interesting
Date: 2009-01-10 10:08 am (UTC)There are so many questions I'd like to ask you- I don't know where to start.
And I don't want to burden you either.
But I've always wondered what it must be like to be a medium- to see and hear things that other people can't. It seems like it would be an enormous privilege, but I suppose it could be oppressive too. Do you have techniques for screening the information? Do you have guides?
There, I wasn't going to ask questions, but I can't help myself....
no subject
Date: 2009-01-10 10:14 am (UTC)I've got to a stage where I can immediately spot the use of CGI- except in instances where it's very subtly used- because the textures are never quite right, they're always a little to slick and plasticky- and as soon as you've rumbled that something is fake it might just as well be a rubber monster in front of a painted backdrop. Either something is totally convincing or it's not convincing at all.