Tony Robinson's TV series on the paranormal

[Soapy Sam]

I just watched the first of Tony Robinson's new series on the paranormal.
It was about the story of Helen Duncan, the Scottish "medium" jailed during world war 2 under an 18th century witchcraft law, ostensibly for leaking state secrets.

Robinson was paired up with a sceptic named Becky McCall, of whom I would hope we might see more, since she's a sceptic who doesn't look like Phil Plaitt or Richard Wiseman- though RW did show up in the programme.

The famous and much mistold HMS Barham incident was rehashed. As usual, the ship was described as "lost with all hands", though about a third of her 1260 man crew actually survived. It was made clear though, that knowledge of the sinking was actually widespread well before the official press release and around the (uncertain) date of the seance where Duncan "channeled" the information.

Robinson then rather let the side down (IM O) with a claim that Duncan also "revealed" the sinking of the "Hood". This was apparently reported by Brigadier Roy Firebrace, then an intelligence officer. Apparently the team were unaware of , or uninterested in Firebrace's own interest in the paranormal, not even wondering what he was doing at a seance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_C._Firebrace

It was interesting to see how Robinson clutched at each apparently positive datum as potentially "real", while at the same time agreeing that he felt she used stage tricks and fakery.(I liked his term "MIXED MEDIUM").

Just wondered what others thought.

Intriguingly, there were two more programmes involving psychic / paranormal stories on the five main UK TV channeks tonight.

[cj.23]

Bugger, I'm working on a book and missed it. Is it possible to download BEEB shows? I'm fairly familair with the case as it happens, so doubt any surprises but I'd like to get a look at the spin on it... The Blight Bond one interests me most, because it brings together several of my research interests and because I happen to have done some personal research on that case.

cj x

[Sasha]

Is this the Tony Robinson famous for being a motivational speaker? Or is there another one I haven't heard about?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Is this the Tony Robinson famous for being a motivational speaker? Or is there another one I haven't heard about?

You're confunding* him with Tony Robbins. ;)

=======
* Originally a typo, but I'm contributing it to the English language.

[grayman]

You're confunding* him with Tony Robbins. ;)

=======
* Originally a typo, but I'm contributing it to the English language.

Confund: v. To confuse and confound simultaneously.

[Pixel42]

Bugger, I'm working on a book and missed it. Is it possible to download BEEB shows?
It's not a BBC programme, it was on Channel 4. But they also have a catch-up service similar to the BBC's iplayer: http://www.channel4.com/watch_online/

And Sasha: this is the Tony Robinson who has recently carved out a career presenting documentaries, mostly on archeology, but is still best known for playing Baldrick in the Blackadder sit coms.

[Ersby]

I saw it. It was definitely a story dressed up as an investigative report. At first, it looked like Helen Duncan was the real deal, then it didn't, then it did!

The arguments against were pretty flimsy, (the letter from the govt re. the sinking of the Barham aside). The Forer Effect and Wiseman's seance are all well and good, but the way they were put into the programme didn't make much sense. For example, the programme mused on the subject of ectoplasm and then went to Wiseman and his fake seance which didn't talk about ectoplasm at all.

And it ended on the claim that Duncan "saw" the sinking of HMS Hood, but this was from an interview in 1959? No contemporary evidence regarding that was produced, either for or against.

[Azrael 5]

It was okay ,a healthy dose of skepticism,although Robinson switched between skeptic and semi believer too often.
Ghsots of Glastonbury tonight!!
Im recording them all to DVD if anyone in UK misses them PM me. :)

[Damien Evans]

Is this the Tony Robinson famous for being a motivational speaker? Or is there another one I haven't heard about?

This is Tony "I have a cunning plan" Robinson, best known recently for his Archaeology show "Time Team".

[LibraryLady]

And for the documentary "The Read da Vinci Code" where he demolishes Dan Brown.

[Big Les]

I was so disappointed that I blogged (http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/more-on-helen-duncan/) all over my keyboard. I don't think it did either side any favours, and the sceptical process seemed to be either badly edited or deliberately hamstrung.

cj23 - how are you off for Scotsman archive clippings? I harvested a fair few a little while ago (whilst I had access paid up) if you're interested.

ETA - but yes, the Da Vinci Code prog was sound I thought. So all I can think is that Tony has a bit of a blindspot for afterlife-related stuff.

[Ersby]

That's a very interesting blog you've got there.

[cj.23]

I was so disappointed that I blogged (http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/more-on-helen-duncan/) all over my keyboard. I don't think it did either side any favours, and the sceptical process seemed to be either badly edited or deliberately hamstrung.

cj23 - how are you off for Scotsman archive clippings? I harvested a fair few a little while ago (whilst I had access paid up) if you're interested.

ETA - but yes, the Da Vinci Code prog was sound I thought. So all I can think is that Tony has a bit of a blindspot for afterlife-related stuff.

I'd love to see the clippings Big Les - but first may I congratulate you on http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2008/11/ one of the finest blogs which I have seen in years, and absolutely first rate critical comment. I'm going to bookmark it and read regularly - it deserves to be linked on this site, and i hope to comment on future posts. As you may have gathered history is a subject close to my heart. :)

cj x

[chillzero]

It was a very disappointing start to the series. He saw through a lot of the reading he had done for himself... but struggled because he clearly wants to believe it can be true. It was sad watching his summation at the end, where he basically said it all seemed explanable.... and yet he had his doubts about some of it, leaving that air of 'everything is possible' that he should have been avoiding.

I don't know if I will watch any of the rest based on that one.

[Soapy Sam]

Robinson is more than an actor / presenter. Once VP of the actors' union, he has also been on the Labour Party National Executive Committee and has been mentioned as a potential mayor of Bristol.

He's well known for presenting the archaeological show "Time Team". I wish he had acquired a bit more objectivity from his colleagues there.

Robinson is an actor to trade. How much of his reaction in this show was acting is open to question- it's "entertainment" not science. I had hoped for better though.

[cj.23]

Well it's entertainment clearly - and so far nothing I would be surprised anyone did not know about Bligh Bond - though I note my family have never heard of him! Unfortunately the mulder/scully thing just jars, as they feign amazement at each fact and claim...

cj x

[malbui]

Did it follow the usual C4 documentary style? That is, repetition eight or nine times of the same bit of film with the voiceover that "after the break, we'll be discussing the new theory that could explain this great mystery", a lot of self-conscious footage of the scientist/researcher/expert/lunatic going about their business, and then the conclusion broadcast at about 21.56 that "in spite of all the contradictory evidence, it does seem possible" or that "the bleeding obvious is indeed possible". I watched the last one in a series about planetary catastrophes last week while in the UK, and the breathless conclusion at the end was that space debris had struck the Earth in the past and could do so again. Which was all pretty underwhelming.

[cj.23]

This is excruciating! How can Robinson not know the names of the monk communicators alleged in the Bligh Bond transcripts? It's hardly obscure who his chief communicator was! I can say now... And why did the sceptic tell the osteoarcheologist who it was uspposed to be and what to look for BEFORE she even saw the bones? And why -- oh sod it... By the way, the lady automatist is a member of the SPR, but SPR members hold no corporate opinions, so that fact is rather irrelevant. AGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

OK, I have made worse TV - but still...
cj x

[cj.23]

I',m almost crying in frustration. Surely anyone could remeber a passage from William of Malmesbury? TI'll leave the Patrick/Padraig issue, and all the other problems - (like the question of whether the communicators would have used Middle English - after all they would not by Whitings time at least!) but William of Malmesbury's words are well known to anyone who has spent time reading about Glastonbury, or even peripheral literature like Katharine Maltwood's works... Maybe i'm over estimating how much Robinson could know - but given he is a native of the region, and with at least as much exposure to archeology as i - In fact vast amounts more after many series of Time Team - how is this surprising?

cj x

cj x

[cj.23]

I'm pretty sceptical of facilitated communication as employed in Chris French's debunk, though I note in healthy adults there is evidence it can work-- I'd like to experiment with that. It was an OK programme, I've seen far worse - but I did feel it was rather a missed opportunity

cj x

[Big Les]

Thanks for the kind words folks. I try not to get too ranty in case anyone is actually reading it!

That episode was much the same, as we might have expected. Tony Robinson's clinging to belief was itself stretching credulity this time though - the "Wallace, Emmanuel, Angel" bit of Texas sharpshootery was borderline hilarious. Top Pig indeed.

ETA - I think French was going more for the ideomotor explanation and threw in facilitated communication as analogy. I could be wrong though. I don't think full-on FC is even required to explain the vague squiggles we saw there (and in typical automatic writing as far as I've seen it - which admittedly isn't far.)

[Ersby]

The second one was more fluffy - the first skeptical argument happened after twenty minutes (unless there was a bit right at the begining which I missed). It ended on a nice note, though, with the skeptic admitting being disappointed that they hadn't found any new foundations using Bond's notes.

It sounded like they could've done more about the treatment of Bligh Bond after his revelation. The idea that he became difficult to work with and thought of it as "his abbey" was skipped over far too quickly.

I won't be able to see the last, whatever it's about, which is no bad thing. They've taken a couple of interesting stories and not asked the right questions about them. Pity, really.

[Asolepius]

I saw the first episode and was so disappointed that I didn't bother with the second one. Why is it so difficult to spend most of the programme on actually evaluating the evidence? Why intersperse it with largely unrelated sequences? Overall, why the burning desire to sit on the fence?

....and why did we have to see the exploding ship clip four times? Mind you it was even worse in one of the episodes of Robinson's other recent series Catastrophe, which recycled CGI of the K-T asteroid strike at least 10 times.

I am well into ranting mode now. What really irks me about some of these Channel 4 documentaries is that they cater for an attention span of about 10 seconds. For a start, we are no more than 7 minutes into the programme when there is an ad break. Then after each ad break there is a recap of the material so far, because most people presumably will have forgotten it all while they were exhorted to buy a new sofa or kitchen. I reckon at least 75% of these programmes is repetition and ad breaks, and about half of the rest is padding. Cheap to make I should think.

[Scazon]

Robinson must be short of money to have agreed to take part in such tendentious crap. His apparent bafflement at the psychic's "personal reading" was comical- sanding floors? Hadn't the psychic had production crews crawling all over the place setting up for at least half a day? And she couldn't have tapped them up- even if the production team hadn't deliberately fed her snippets of "unknowable" personal information.

I think he'll take a while to live this series down.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Mind you it was even worse in one of the episodes of Robinson's other recent series Catastrophe, which recycled CGI of the K-T asteroid strike at least 10 times.

I am well into ranting mode now. What really irks me about some of these Channel 4 documentaries is that they cater for an attention span of about 10 seconds. For a start, we are no more than 7 minutes into the programme when there is an ad break. Then after each ad break there is a recap of the material so far, because most people presumably will have forgotten it all while they were exhorted to buy a new sofa or kitchen. I reckon at least 75% of these programmes is repetition and ad breaks, and about half of the rest is padding. Cheap to make I should think.

I thought the Catastrophe series was generally pretty good. My only minor criticism would be that it presented some speculative theories as though they are proven facts. It followed the basics of effective communication, which are:

1) Say what you're going to say.
2) Say it.
3) Say what you have said.

People who have a familiarity with the subject(s) being presented are likely to become frustrated by what for them is needless repetition, but is required for naive members of the audience to get the material to stick in their memories.

Next year Dr Alice Roberts will be presenting a series on evolution to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/statements2008/television/bbctwo.shtml)

Priority: The anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species will be marked by a focus on Darwin and evolution in early 2009, with a number of programmes including an exploration of the influence of Darwin's legacy on the ideas and politics of the 20th century and Dr Alice Roberts uncovering the story of the evolution of the human race. The partnership between BBC Two and BBC Four will deliver complementary content on this subject during this period, to deepen the range, depth and audience impact of the offer.

If this is as good has her Don't Die Young series then it should be worth watching. Heck, it will be worth watching just because Alice Roberts is presenting it.

[SusanB-M1]

I was so disappointed that I blogged (http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/more-on-helen-duncan/) all over my keyboard. I don't think it did either side any favours, and the sceptical process seemed to be either badly edited or deliberately hamstrung.
I clicked on the link and listened to a slelection of lines here and there down the page, but when I got to the part where it says 'Leave a reply', my name was already in the edit area. That's really clever - how did your blog know it was me?!

[Professor Yaffle]

I clicked on the link and listened to a slelection of lines here and there down the page, but when I got to the part where it says 'Leave a reply', my name was already in the edit area. That's really clever - how did your blog know it was me?!

You must have commented on a wordpress blog before.

[Soapy Sam]

Oooh! Spooky cookies!

I missed Glastonbury but watched most of the Cathar nonsense.
This was downright stupid- not to mention wasting a lot of cash on free jaunts to France for no obvious reason.

I really think TB has shot himself in the head with this mess, but I won't object if I see more of Becky McCall. She sneers so beautifully.

[Ersby]

What was the third one about?

[cj.23]

What was the third one about?

I missed it too but every reference i have seen mentions CAthars (an area I can speak with some authority on) and reincarnation so I'm guessingthe Arthur Guirdham case? I will have to watch it...

cj x

[SusanB-M1]

You must have commented on a wordpress blog before.
Thank you. I think it's all very clever.

I missed it too but every reference i have seen mentions CAthars (an area I can speak with some authority on) and reincarnation so I'm guessingthe Arthur Guirdham case? I will have to watch it...

cj x
I would love to see Carcassone. A friend obtained for me 'La Tragédie Cathare' by Georges Bordonove which was recommended to me (on the BBC's 'History Hub' MB) as being the most authoritative book on the subject. I read a bit every now and again; very interesting.

[cj.23]

I would love to see Carcassone. A friend obtained for me 'La Tragédie Cathare' by Georges Bordonove which was recommended to me (on the BBC's 'History Hub' MB) as being the most authoritative book on the subject. I read a bit every now and again; very interesting.


I'd love to go there one day too. The Cathars are one of the most unfortunately misunderstood of people - generation after generation rinvented them as they wanted them to be, and I have a strong suspicion that we should talk about Catharism(s) plural, because they held quite varied beliefs and disagreed internally on much - but they are fascinating. Bizarrely I ened up with a lot od respect for Saint Dominic, and a weird kind of sympathy for old Pope Innocent III - Arnauld Amaury remaisn forever beyond the pale, whether or not he did say "Kill them all; God will know his own" at Beziers. The whole horrible tragedy is deeply moving though - and Count Raymond was astonishingly fun. :) Glad you liked Georges Bordonove Susan - the more people who actually understand the Cathars, the more we can resist their mythic exploitation by people. :)

cj x