Mrs. Piper Mediumship Discussion [Archive]

Mike D.

4th March 2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by TLN

I'd be very happy to look at those studies and the tests conducted. Where can I do this?

TLN,

The first scientist to investigate Mrs. Piper was psychologist William James, who famously referred to Piper as his "white crow." But his studies of her are not generally considered as significant as are those conducted by Richard Hodgson and other later investigators. Hodgson was known in his time as an extreme skeptic with a reputation for exposing fraudulent mediums, and he and other investigators instituted certain controls to guard against fraud on Mrs. Piper's part. Here are some of them: she was trailed by private detectives, her mail was opened and read, sitters were brought to her on the spur of the moment and introduced to her under false names, proxy sittings were held, where people were brought to her seances not only with false names but with the intent of sitting on behalf of others who weren't present at the seances. Mrs. Piper was not informed of the identities of the individuals that the proxies were sitting on behalf of. And some investigators, in order to test the genuineness of her trance, engaged in some rather cruel practices such as cutting, burning, and blistering her while she was in trance to see if she would react.

Mrs. Piper was eventually taken to England where she'd never been and presumably knew no one, and several investigators continued to test her and take the above mentioned precautions against fraud.

Many of the tests of Hodgson and others were written up in great detail in the publications of the Society for Psychical Research. These are now available online and you can go to the Society's website for instructions on how to access them.

If you want to read a contemporary overview of Mrs. Piper's mediumship, I recommend Chapter 3 of Stephen Braude's 2003 book, Immortal Remains. Braude is chairman of the Philosophy Department of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. He quotes excerpts from a few Piper transcripts, the longest excerpt being from the "Sutton transcript."

Mrs. Piper's transcripts are not of equal quality, as she seems to have had her off days, as well as days when she produced high quality information. So to really get a feel for what her mediumship was like, both on good days and bad days, one needs to read fair number of transcripts.

Speaking of the "Sutton transcript," my feeling is, if the Sutton case has been reported accurately, that either hot reading or some kind of anomalous cognition are the only two choices for accounting for the quality of the transcript. I think cold reading can be effectively ruled out. If Mrs. Piper hot read the Suttons (who were brought into the seance room and introduced to her using fake names), then she would have somehow had to have had prior knowledge of intimate facts concerning the family life of the Suttons, and also somehow have gained the knowledge to imitate mannerisms and language patterns of the Sutton's deceased daughter.

The entire Sutton transcript can be found in this paper by Hodgson: Richard Hodgson (1898) "A Further Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance." Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 13: 284-582. The fact that this one paper by one of the investigators of Mrs. Piper is close to 300 pages long is a hint of how voluminous the original source material on her is.

Mrs. Piper is sometimes referred to in the literature as perhaps the most outstanding medium who has been extensively studied to date. So perhaps anyone who wants to critically examine mediumship would be advised to spend a lot of time on her.

I think Piper's case is complex, and what I know of it so far has not led me to conclude that there is survival of death or that Piper was communicating with the dead. At the moment I entertain a modest belief that she may well have exhibited at times some sort of anomalous cognition that has not been adequately explained. But, of course, that belief could change as I learn more about her. And given the quantity of original source information that is available about her, I certainly have more to learn.

Mike

CFLarsen

5th March 2004, 01:05 AM

TLN,

We have never seen Mrs. Piper in action. There are no film clips, no audio clips, and personally, I haven't even seen a single transcript, if one such exists. If they do, we have no way of checking whether they are real or not. All we have are the assurances that Mrs. Piper is real, from people who believe in mediumship. None of the people studying her are alive today. We can't even talk to any of the people who were read by her.

We can't check on Mrs. Piper.

On the other hand, we have seen tons of footage of John Edward in action. Tons of film clips, tons of audio clips, and tons of transcripts, analyzed over and over again. We even have a (supposedly) scientific study of John Edward. We can easily talk to people who have been read by him.

We can check on John Edward.

And yet, Mrs. Piper is chosen as the best example of mediumship.

We know that when accounts of "hits" are examined, they dwindle to nothing. We know that when believers in mediumship give accounts of readings, these accounts do not hold up to scrutiny. We know that readings are embellished, pruned and sometimes even fabricated. We know that paranormal research is marred by fraud.

Old tales of past glory should be taken with a few pinches of salt. Especially when it comes to the supernatural.

NoZed Avenger

5th March 2004, 01:52 AM

Wasn't Ms. Piper the trance medium who originally had a french doctor as a "control" -- a french doctor who, when questioned, neither spoke convincing french nor knew about medicine or anatomy?

That Ms. Piper?

N/A

Darat

5th March 2004, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
TLN,

We have never seen Mrs. Piper in action.

...snip...

We can't check on Mrs. Piper.

...snip...

Old tales of past glory should be taken with a few pinches of salt. Especially when it comes to the supernatural.

I do think however that Mrs Piper does warrant looking at, even if only for the very reason she is held up as one of the "stars" by believers in “mediumship”.

I read a lot about her many, many years ago (pre-internet) but never saw any full length transcripts and from what I did read she did not impress me anymore then say JE does today. If transcripts and more stuff are now available I will make some time and go and have a read and look. Who knows may see something incredible.

What I would like to see is anyone who has already researched her on the "pro" mediumship side, say like Clancie, point to the "highlights" as a starting point.

Ersby

5th March 2004, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
So...the "best ones".....what are they?

A good question, and one I doubt you'll get an answer to. With respect to such lack of evidence I now crown myself "best psychic cold reader in the world"!

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Wasn't Ms. Piper the trance medium who originally had a french doctor as a "control" -- a french doctor who, when questioned, neither spoke convincing french nor knew about medicine or anatomy?

That Ms. Piper?

N/A

NoZed Avenger,

Yes, one of Mrs. Piper's controls was Dr. Phinuit, who claimed to have been a French doctor. However, the scientists and investigators of Mrs. Piper did not view Phinuit as a real spirit of a deceased person, in part for the reasons you mention. While Mrs. Piper later had a couple of controls who were much more convincing, there were problems with them as well. In general, serious "secular" investigators seem to have viewed the controls of trance mediums as more likely to be secondary personalities of the medium himself or herself (of course, they first attempted to rule out the possibility that such mediums were engaging in conscious fraud). And the trance medium Eileen Garrett even herself believed that her controls were likely secondary personalities.

Given the fact that serious investigators raised problems with taking the controls of trance mediums at face value, they looked at the issue of whether or not any information appearing while the medium was in trance was derived paranormally. If Dr. Phinuit, for example, claimed to be relaying information from a spirit, how accurate was the information, and, if highly unique and accurate, how likely was it that Mrs. Piper could have acquired the information normally. The issue for the investigators was more complex than simply a question of either/or -- either a given medium being fraudulent, -or-, literally communicating with the dead.

Mike

CFLarsen

5th March 2004, 06:39 AM

Mike D.,

Did Dr. Phinuit himself claim to be a French doctor?

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Mike D.,

Did Dr. Phinuit himself claim to be a French doctor?

Claus,

Yes.

Mike

Clancie

5th March 2004, 07:01 AM

So, Darat, what are you asking for? A transcript?

CFLarsen

5th March 2004, 07:09 AM

Mike D.,

So, how do we distinguish between a medium having "secondary personalities" (not cheating), and a medium inventing spirits (cheating)?

Clancie,

You ignore the fact that, for a cold-reading to work, the audience has to accept that the cold-reader can actually talk to dead people.

You also ignore the very real ethical aspects of cheating people going through a grief process.

You are perfectly aware of these, but you ignore them. Is that honest?

Edited to add: Clancie, could you please stop removing posts?? It is very destructive to the debate.

Darat

5th March 2004, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
So, Darat, what are you asking for? A transcript?

No just some help narrowing down of where to start from to find some of those "special hits" and "good demos".

When I saw from Mike that "The individuals who studied her produced voluminous papers on their tests and there exist voluminous transcripts of her seances." I was hoping someone like you who knew her work etc. could quickly point to the examples you thought compelling for the “pro” case.

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Mike D.,

So, how do we distinguish between a medium having "secondary personalities" (not cheating), and a medium inventing spirits (cheating)?

Claus,

I really don't know, but I would guess is that probably somewhere in the vast quantity of material produced by investigators of trance mediumship is a discussion of this issue, but I'm unable at present to point you to it, if it exists. But here is a discussion of the whole issue of the nature of "trance personalities" that you might find interesting to peruse:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/tyrrell/personalities.htm

Of course, investigators did take pains to put in place safeguards against Mrs. Piper fraudulently acquiring the unique and specific information that often was communicated during her seances, as well as trying to determine if she was really unconscious during her trances. But I'm not sure how this specifically relates to the question of whether or not the controls were actual secondary personalities of the medium.

Mike

CFLarsen

5th March 2004, 09:29 AM

Mike D.,

So, we don't know the difference between a medium having "secondary personalities" (not cheating), and a medium inventing spirits (cheating).

You mention the Mrs. Piper was under surveillance etc. during her testing period, and no evidence of her cheating was found. I don't think that anyone would argue that "medium not found cheating" is the same as "medium is real", but it does leave us with very little to work with.

Thanks for your link. I found a very interesting paragraph:

Fictitious Communicators
The fact that entirely fictitious communicators occasionally appear in the trance shows clearly that secondary organizations of some kind exist in the medium. I think that such false communicators are a sign of bad conditions and seldom occur with the best mediums; but Mrs. Sidgwick, in her thorough examination of Mrs. Piper's trance(3), refers to such cases.

(3) 'The Psychology of Mrs. Piper's Trance Phenomena,' Proc. SPR, vol. xxviii. p. 176.

A Mrs. E., who had had three sittings with Mrs. Piper in 1902, received the impression that 'some intelligence was impersonating, deliberately and with considerable ingenuity, and yet on the whole doing it so ill that the deception is proved beyond a peradventure.' 'On the third sitting,' she says, 'I asked leading questions which were calculated to mislead; and in every case the communicator fell into the trap, with a result that would have been ludicrous had it not been so disgusting.'
Source (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/tyrrell/personalities.htm#fictitious)

In the biography of Piper, we find this:

"Phinuit had a deep gruff voice, in striking contrast with the voice of the medium. His exclusive regime lasted from 1884-1892"
Source (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/3.htm)

Since Mrs. Piper had a fictitious person coming through in 1902, ten years after the French doctor Phinuit showed "himself" to be of, shall we say, lesser spiritual substance, can we surmise that the spiritual abilities of Mrs. Piper is somewhat exaggerated? We are not merely talking about Phinuit being a "secondary personality", but also the "spirits" following him.

This raises very serious doubt about the validity of Mrs. Piper.

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Mike D.,

So, we don't know the difference between a medium having "secondary personalities" (not cheating), and a medium inventing spirits (cheating).

You mention the Mrs. Piper was under surveillance etc. during her testing period, and no evidence of her cheating was found. I don't think that anyone would argue that "medium not found cheating" is the same as "medium is real", but it does leave us with very little to work with.

Thanks for your link. I found a very interesting paragraph:

In the biography of Piper, we find this:

Since Mrs. Piper had a fictitious person coming through in 1902, ten years after the French doctor Phinuit showed "himself" to be of, shall we say, lesser spiritual substance, can we surmise that the spiritual abilities of Mrs. Piper is somewhat exaggerated? We are not merely talking about Phinuit being a "secondary personality", but also the "spirits" following him.

This raises very serious doubt about the validity of Mrs. Piper.

Claus,

No serious investigator of Mrs. Piper has ever argued, as far as I know, that she did not have obvious fictitious personalities showing up periodically during the course of her mediumship. The theory of the investigators appears to have been that the unconscious or subsconscious is very creative during trance and that it will often create these false personalities in order to further the whole spiritualist drama of spirit communication. The investigators did not look to these artificial personalities to determine if Piper had genuine paranormal abilities. They were interested in evaluating the accuracy and specificity of information that came through during her trances.

Mike

BillHoyt

5th March 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.
...serious investigator...

The theory of the investigators appears to have been that the unconscious or subsconscious is very creative during trance and that it will often create these false personalities in order to further the whole spiritualist drama of spirit communication.

This juxtaposition boggles the mind, I'm afraid.

Thanz

5th March 2004, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

This juxtaposition boggles the mind, I'm afraid.
Good to see that you're nudging the forum towards a greater intellectual and educational reality, Mr. Hoyt. Ever think of practicing what you preach?

CFLarsen

5th March 2004, 10:06 AM

Mike D,

But, if the investigators did not look to these artificial personalities to determine if Piper had genuine paranormal abilities....how do we know that Mrs. Piper had any paranormal abilities at all?

Isn't the argumentation that, since no trickery was found, she was real?

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Mike D,

But, if the investigators did not look to these artificial personalities to determine if Piper had genuine paranormal abilities....how do we know that Mrs. Piper had any paranormal abilities at all?

Isn't the argumentation that, since no trickery was found, she was real?

Claus,

The investigators looked to cases in which Piper communicated information which turned out to be extremely unique and specific, at the same time that controls against fraud were in place. So the argument was more than just the fact that no trickery was found.

Mike

CFLarsen

5th March 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.
The investigators looked to cases in which Piper communicated information which turned out to be extremely unique and specific, at the same time that controls against fraud were in place. So the argument was more than just the fact that no trickery was found.

Very well: What information did she communicate, that was extremely unique and specific?

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Very well: What information did she communicate, that was extremely unique and specific?

Claus,

There are numerous examples. For one, see the Sutton transcript. I'm not able this afternoon to go into more detail, but perhaps I can later. But I do think in evaluating a claim like this, it is important ultimately to look at the record of an entire case, including the full transcript and the controls against fraud that were in place, rather than relying on any summary I or anyone else might provide.

Mike

CFLarsen

5th March 2004, 10:46 AM

Mike D. ,

Good. Let's look at the Sutton transcript. Got it handy?

Interesting Ian

5th March 2004, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.

TLN,

The first scientist to investigate Mrs. Piper was psychologist William James, who famously referred to Piper as his "white crow." But his studies of her are not generally considered as significant as are those conducted by Richard Hodgson and other later investigators. Hodgson was known in his time as an extreme skeptic with a reputation for exposing fraudulent mediums, and he and other investigators instituted certain controls to guard against fraud on Mrs. Piper's part. Here are some of them: she was trailed by private detectives, her mail was opened and read, sitters were brought to her on the spur of the moment and introduced to her under false names, proxy sittings were held, where people were brought to her seances not only with false names but with the intent of sitting on behalf of others who weren't present at the seances. Mrs. Piper was not informed of the identities of the individuals that the proxies were sitting on behalf of. And some investigators, in order to test the genuineness of her trance, engaged in some rather cruel practices such as cutting, burning, and blistering her while she was in trance to see if she would react.

Mrs. Piper was eventually taken to England where she'd never been and presumably knew no one, and several investigators continued to test her and take the above mentioned precautions against fraud.

Many of the tests of Hodgson and others were written up in great detail in the publications of the Society for Psychical Research. These are now available online and you can go to the Society's website for instructions on how to access them.

If you want to read a contemporary overview of Mrs. Piper's mediumship, I recommend Chapter 3 of Stephen Braude's 2003 book, Immortal Remains. Braude is chairman of the Philosophy Department of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. He quotes excerpts from a few Piper transcripts, the longest excerpt being from the "Sutton transcript."

Mrs. Piper's transcripts are not of equal quality, as she seems to have had her off days, as well as days when she produced high quality information. So to really get a feel for what her mediumship was like, both on good days and bad days, one needs to read fair number of transcripts.

Speaking of the "Sutton transcript," my feeling is, if the Sutton case has been reported accurately, that either hot reading or some kind of anomalous cognition are the only two choices for accounting for the quality of the transcript. I think cold reading can be effectively ruled out. If Mrs. Piper hot read the Suttons (who were brought into the seance room and introduced to her using fake names), then she would have somehow had to have had prior knowledge of intimate facts concerning the family life of the Suttons, and also somehow have gained the knowledge to imitate mannerisms and language patterns of the Sutton's deceased daughter.

The entire Sutton transcript can be found in this paper by Hodgson: Richard Hodgson (1898) "A Further Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance." Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 13: 284-582. The fact that this one paper by one of the investigators of Mrs. Piper is close to 300 pages long is a hint of how voluminous the original source material on her is.

Mrs. Piper is sometimes referred to in the literature as perhaps the most outstanding medium who has been extensively studied to date. So perhaps anyone who wants to critically examine mediumship would be advised to spend a lot of time on her.

I think Piper's case is complex, and what I know of it so far has not led me to conclude that there is survival of death or that Piper was communicating with the dead. At the moment I entertain a modest belief that she may well have exhibited at times some sort of anomalous cognition that has not been adequately explained. But, of course, that belief could change as I learn more about her. And given the quantity of original source information that is available about her, I certainly have more to learn.

Mike

I've just read about Mrs Piper in Irwin's "Introduction to parapsychology". I think there's a lot of suggestive evidence for anomalous cognition. Of course the question of whether she is communicating with deceased persons is a harder issue to judge. There's some stuff about the cross correspondances later on in the book though.

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Mike D. ,

Good. Let's look at the Sutton transcript. Got it handy?

Claus,

I assume you mean that it should be posted here and we'll discuss it. I'm willing to comment on it and discuss it with you if someone else will take the time to post it. I gave the reference to the location of the entire transcript in my post to TLN above. And if you have Braude's Immortal Remains. there is an excerpt from it in Chapter 3.

Mike

CFLarsen

5th March 2004, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.
I assume you mean that it should be posted here and we'll discuss it.

Yes.

Originally posted by Mike D.
I'm willing to comment on it and discuss it with you if someone else will take the time to post it. I gave the reference to the location of the entire transcript in my post to TLN above.

This link: http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/heywood/piper.htm ?

There is no reference to the transcript there. Am I missing something?

Originally posted by Mike D.
And if you have Braude's Immortal Remains. there is an excerpt from it in Chapter 3.

I don't. Let's look at the whole transcript instead.

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I've just read about Mrs Piper in Irwin's "Introduction to parapsychology". I think there's a lot of suggestive evidence for anomalous cognition. Of course the question of whether she is communicating with deceased persons is a harder issue to judge. There's some stuff about the cross correspondances later on in the book though.

Ian,

Mrs. Piper apparently believed that she had genuine psychic abilities, but one time in an interview she herself said she didn't really know whether she was really communicating with the dead or simply picking up information by means of telepathy and dramatizing it during her trances. And of course, the medium Eileen Garrett is well known for being skeptical that she (Garrett) was really communicating with the dead, in addition to believing that her controls were most likely secondary personalities.

Mike

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yes.

This link: http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/heywood/piper.htm ?

There is no reference to the transcript there. Am I missing something?

I don't. Let's look at the whole transcript instead.

Claus,

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The SPR has on their website instructions on how to access their publications online. And here is the specific reference from my post to TLN:

"The entire Sutton transcript can be found in this paper by Hodgson: Richard Hodgson (1898) "A Further Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance." Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 13: 284-582. The fact that this one paper by one of the investigators of Mrs. Piper is close to 300 pages long is a hint of how voluminous the original source material on her is."

Mike

CFLarsen

5th March 2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Mike D.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. The SPR has on their website instructions on how to access their publications online.

They require membership, $78. Sorry, that's a bit much to pay for a transcript of someone not proven to be a real medium.

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

They require membership, $78. Sorry, that's a bit much to pay for a transcript of someone not proven to be a real medium.

Well, at least the references are posted for anyone who wants to check these things out on their own. Some libraries have a full run of the SPR publications.

CFLarsen

5th March 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Mike D.
Well, at least the references are posted for anyone who wants to check these things out on their own. Some libraries have a full run of the SPR publications.

Not in Denmark, they don't. :)

Clancie

5th March 2004, 12:32 PM

Mike,

I have the Braude book here. Do you think its of any value to post that excerpt? I'm not sure myself.

After all, I asked a question (which only ersby ever addressed). TLN responded by asking me who I thought was a medium worth considering and I said "Mrs. Piper".

When I answered TLN, I wasn't offering to prepare a thorough case of my own on Piper's behalf. At some point I think those who are interested--and have resources presented to them--should put enough of their own effort into reading and forming an opinion, then arguing it out.

At this poijnt, I'm not sure how much work to put into typing up the Braude excerpt--especially since (1) its off topic anyway; (2) you've already provided -several- links and several references they could read to learn much more about her than anything we could post here, in this format; (3) the full transcripts are too long to post here and partial ones will be dismissed as "not showing the full picture" and (4) I kind of think that its enough to point someone in the right direction and, if they're interested enough to do some research into it of their own, then discuss it further at that point.

I'm willing to post from Braude, but at this point, I'm not sure what value it would have.

CFLarsen

5th March 2004, 12:45 PM

Clancie,

I'm a little fuzzy on why you think partial transcripts are not worth it. On TVTalkshows, they did not seem a problem, but I can deduct from your post that you seem to have changed your mind.

At any rate, we agree: Partial transcripts are worthless. We also have to be able to - somehow - verify that the full transcripts are correct. We can do this with JE's readings from Crossing Over. How do you suggest we do this with Piper's transcripts? Are there any recordings of any kind of any of her readings?

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Mike,

I have the Braude book here. Do you think its of any value to post that excerpt? I'm not sure myself.

After all, I asked a question (which only ersby ever addressed). TLN responded by asking me who I thought was a medium worth considering and I said "Mrs. Piper".

When I answered TLN, I wasn't offering to prepare a thorough case of my own on Piper's behalf. At some point I think those who are interested--and have resources presented to them--should put enough of their own effort into reading and forming an opinion, then arguing it out.

At this poijnt, I'm not sure how much work to put into typing up the Braude excerpt--especially since (1) its off topic anyway; (2) you've already provided -several- links and several references they could read to learn much more about her than anything we could post here, in this format; (3) the full transcripts are too long to post here and partial ones will be dismissed as "not showing the full picture" and (4) I kind of think that its enough to point someone in the right direction and, if they're interested enough to do some research into it of their own, then discuss it further at that point.

I'm willing to post from Braude, but at this point, I'm not sure what value it would have.

Clancie,

Well, I think some here might find excerpts of interest, but Claus has just expressed his preference to see the full transcript, and I suspect that some others might feel that way as well. Personally, I feel that typing in the excerpts from Braude's book would take more time than I'd be willing to devote to it, but if you should feel like doing it, as I said, I think some here might find the excerpts of interest.

Mike

Darat

5th March 2004, 01:01 PM

Clancie

5th March 2004, 01:49 PM

Sorry, Darat. I was actually thinking of TLN, not you, when I wrote the questions to Mike. Contemplating the effort to post this...and the (imo) very predictable responses (sorry if that sounds bad)....isn't very motivating (especially since it really is a -total diversion- he made up to my question). Sorry if it seemed in response to what you'd said.

Anyway, this is from Alan Gauld's Mediumship and Survival:

Gauld introduces the reading (p.40): "I shall now give an extract from the first of two sittings with Mrs. Piper had by the Rev and Mrs. SW Sutton of Athol Center Massachusetts on Dec. 8, 1893. It was booked by (skeptic/investigator) Richard Hodgson, and the sitters were introduced under the pseudonym of "Smith". A practiced note-taker acted as recorder. It must be understood that throughout Phinuit speaks (and gestures) on behalf of the child communicator; she does not "control" herself. The bracketed annotations are by Mrs. Sutton.
(My note: Mrs. Piper ("Phinuit" is the control; "Kakie" is the deceased) )

Medium/Phinuit says:...."A little child is coming to you".

Medium reaches out his hands as to a child and says coaxingly, "Come here, dear. Don't be afraid. Come, darling. Here is your mother."

Medium describes the child and her "lovely curls". Medium says "Where is Papa? Want Papa." (Piper/Phinuit takes from the table a silver medal) "I want this, want to bite it." [Mrs. Sutton--she used to bite it]..

Phinuit/Piper reaches fro a string of buttons) "Quick! I want to put them in my mouth! [Mrs Sutton--she liked to bite buttons also, but it was forbidden. The medium/control exactly imitated her arch manner).

"Who is Dodo?" [This was the deceased's name for her brother George] ..."I want you to call Dodo. Tell Doddo I am happy. Cry for me no more." [Medium/control puts hand on throat]

"No sore throat any more." (She had pain and distress of the throat and tongue.)

"Papa, speak to me. Can you not see me? I am not dead. I am living. I am happy with Grandma. [Mrs Sutton--my mother had been dead many years]

"Here are two more. One, two, three, here, --one older and one younger than Kakie." [Correct]

Medium/Control: "Was this little one's tongue very dry? She keeps showing me her tongue." [Her tongue was paralysed and she suffered much with it to the end.]

"Her name is Katherine." [Correct] She calls herself Kakie. She passed out last.[Correct]. "Where is horsey? [I gave him a little horsey]. "Big horsey, not this little one. [Probably refers to a toy car-horse she used to like] "Papa, want to go wide [ride] horsey. [She pleaded this all through her illness]

[I ask if she remembers anything after she was brought downstairs]. "I was so hot, my head was so hot. [Correct]....Do not cry for me - that makes me sad. Eleanor. I want Eleanor. [Eleanor was her little sister. She called for her much during her last illness.] "I want my buttons. Row, row, - my son,..sing it now. I sing with you. [We sing and the medium's soft child voice sings with us]

They sing the first verse then Piper/Phinuit hushes them and then sings a different song/verse alone song alone.

(singing) "Bye, bye, ba bye, bye, bye, O baby bye. Sing that with me Papa. (They sing) [These were the two songs she used to sing.] "Where is Dinah? I want Dinah." [Dinah was an old black rag doll, not with us.] "I want Bagie. [Her nickname for her sister Margaret.] "I want Bagie to bring me my Dinah....Tell Dodo when you see him that I love him. Dear Dodo. He used to march with me. He put me way up." [Correct].....

CFLarsen

5th March 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
...and the (imo) very predictable responses (sorry if that sounds bad)....

Heavens, no. It does not sound "bad", because you have rejected partial transcripts yourself.

I cannot imagine why you suddenly want to criticize skeptics for doing something you have done yourself.

So, I'd like to ask you: Why?

T'ai Chi

5th March 2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I cannot imagine why you suddenly want to criticize skeptics for doing something you have done yourself.

:i:

Darat

5th March 2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...

Anyway, this is from Alan Gauld's Mediumship and Survival:

Gauld introduces the reading (p.40): "I shall now give an extract from the first of two sittings with Mrs. Piper had by the Rev and Mrs. SW Sutton of Athol Center Massachusetts on Dec. 8, 1893. It was booked by (skeptic/investigator) Richard Hodgson, and the sitters were introduced under the pseudonym of "Smith". A practiced note-taker acted as recorder. It must be understood that throughout Phinuit speaks (and gestures) on behalf of the child communicator; she does not "control" herself. The bracketed annotations are by Mrs. Sutton.

...snip...

Thank you very much.

This seemed familiar I think I may have had read parts of it before, couple of quick questions :

Is this the entire transcript?
Was this held at Mrs Piper's residence?

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Is this the entire transcript?
Was this held at Mrs Piper's residence?

Darat,

This excerpt (from Gauld's book) is actually a small portion of the transcript. Braude quotes a much longer portion in his book, and the entire transcript is much longer even than what Braude quotes.

I don't know where this seance was held, but I imagine Hodgson discusses details like that in his paper in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research.

Mike

Darat

5th March 2004, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Mike D.

Darat,

This excerpt (from Gauld's book) is actually a small portion of the transcript. Braude quotes a much longer portion in his book, and the entire transcript is much longer even than what Braude quotes.

I don't know where this seance was held, but I imagine Hodgson discusses details like that in his paper in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research.

Mike

Thanks - you are making it harder to resist that membership fee - are you on commission? ;)

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Thanks - you are making it harder to resist that membership fee - are you on commission? ;)

Darat,

No, I'm not on commission, but here's what Mark Tidwell posted on the subject in the "Mediumship: What would it take?" thread:

I'd like to encourage everyone to register to view the contents of the JSPR on-line archives. This is the resource for papers on paranormal research. Love it or hate it, there is no better on-line database for those wishing to make informed commentary on this field.

Mike

dharlow

5th March 2004, 05:38 PM

Just to chime in here...

While I also think the online database for the SPR is a great resource, if you're strickly interested in the transcripts, you may want to save the money and try to find the Proceedings of the SPR in your nearest university library. Most (though not all) have SPR archives, especially the older ones. Unfortunately, the text format does not transfer well online, and it can be confusing to follow the transcripts (ie who is speaking) in that way. If a nearby library has the old SPR work, that would be a much more efficient format. Just a suggestion.

Mike D.

5th March 2004, 05:42 PM

Darat,

I submit that even this brief excerpt from the transcript is superior to a typical John Edward transcript in the area of the medium accurately getting proper names. I count six proper names that Piper/Phinuit says without saying things like "I'm getting a B sound," and then throwing out several names until one hopefully sticks.

Mike

Darat

5th March 2004, 06:05 PM

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 12:20 AM

Clancie,

Thanks for the transcript. I have a few problems with it, the biggest being that this is Phinuit "coming through". Since we have established that Phinuit is not a spirit, but an "artificial personality", we are talking about telepathy instead of mediumship.

Provided, of course, that Piper could read minds. The problem is that Piper (or Phinuit) is clearly communicating with a dead person - telepathically, that is.

What do we actually have here?

Piper is not talking to a dead person, her artificial personality Phinuit is telepathically getting information from a dead person.

Sorry, but there are simply too many weak links in this chain.

And this is the best example of mediumship so far? Not impressive at all.

Darat

6th March 2004, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.
Darat,

I submit that even this brief excerpt from the transcript is superior to a typical John Edward transcript in the area of the medium accurately getting proper names. I count six proper names that Piper/Phinuit says without saying things like "I'm getting a B sound," and then throwing out several names until one hopefully sticks.

Mike

(Clancie - please read this as a reply about this being one of the examples that convinces you to have a more “pro” then “nay” attitude towards mediumship.)

First of all I think most people would agree that there is a difference of style between a trance medium and a non-trance medium (correct term?) and we certainly see that if we use Piper as an example of one and Edward as the other.

The way the names are brought forward is very different from what we see and hear a non-trance medium (NTM) doing and I agree we see six names (3 proper names, 3 nicknames) which certainly is more then we’ve seen here in any comparable sized NTM transcript.

However the names seem to be the only information that I would consider specific and unique to this family. All the rest is very much what we see from a typical NTM e.g. the common non-unique but specific sounding information that a sitter then fits to their circumstances.

(An interesting point to note is that one of the names “Dinah”, although to a modern reader sounds quite specific and probably a compelling piece of communication, could just be another example of the “non-unique specific sounding” technique I believe mediums employ. A quick internet research revealed that this was a common rag doll commercially available; I surmise it is rather like a little girl today asking about her “Barbie”.)

I do have a major issue with the accuracy of the transcript. (I recognise that this could just be because I’m passing opinions purely on the info in Clancie’s post and more information could overturn this.)

The transcript (as presented) is obviously not an unedited and complete transcript of the sitting. We can see that by the phrase “Medium describes the child and her…” editing happened at some point. I would have thought that a description of the child would have been an important piece of data to keep in a record of the sitting. With the evidence of at least one major piece of editing it makes me very reluctant to accept that the rest of the transcript represents a complete record of this part of the sitting.

With that in mind does this transcript represent, according to the researchers, the complete surviving record of this part of the sitting?

(Minor edits for clarity.)

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Darat

(Clancie - please read this as a reply about this being one of the examples that convinces you to have a more “pro” then “nay” attitude towards mediumship.)

First of all I think most people would agree that there is a difference of style between a trance medium and a non-trance medium (correct term?) and we certainly see that if we use Piper as an example of one and Edward as the other.

The way the names are brought forward is very different from what we see and hear a non-trance medium (NTM) doing and I agree we see six names (3 proper names, 3 nicknames) which certainly is more then we’ve seen here in any comparable sized NTM transcript.

However the names seem to be the only information that I would consider specific and unique to this family. All the rest is very much what we see from a typical NTM e.g. the common non-unique but specific sounding information that a sitter then fits to their circumstances.

(An interesting point to note is that one of the names “Dinah”, although to a modern reader sounds quite specific and probably a compelling piece of communication, could just be another example of the “non-unique specific sounding” technique I believe mediums employ. A quick internet research revealed that this was a common rag doll commercially available; I surmise it is rather like a little girl today asking about her “Barbie”.)

I do have a major issue with the accuracy of the transcript. (I recognise that this could just be because I’m passing opinions purely on the info in Clancie’s post and more information could overturn this.)

The transcript (as presented) is obviously not an unedited and complete transcript of the sitting. We can see that by the phrase “Medium describes the child and her…” editing happened at some point. I would have thought that a description of the child would have been an important piece of data to keep in a record of the sitting. With the evidence of at least one major piece of editing it makes me very reluctant to accept that the rest of the transcript represents a complete record of this part of the sitting.

With that in mind does this transcript represent, according to the researchers, the complete surviving record of this part of the sitting?

(Minor edits for clarity.)

Darat,

If one compares what Gauld has quoted in his book to the excerpts Braude has quoted in his, it is obvious that Gauld has pieced together small chunks of the original apparently just to give a flavor of what it is like. Braude even comments that he feels it is important to quote more so that the reader can get a feel for how the communications at a trance medium's seance "flow." I don't know the answer to some of the questions you raise without looking at Hodgson's original paper.

If we discount the doll's name, Dinah, we are still left with five specific names, all of which, according to the Suttons, are accurate. I have no claim to make about this fragment other than to point that out (and of course, to say that it is obviously very different from how JE comes up with names, whether or not it is due to a difference in style).

Mike

Darat

6th March 2004, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.

Darat,

If one compares what Gauld has quoted in his book to the excerpts Braude has quoted in his, it is obvious that Gauld has pieced together small chunks of the original apparently just to give a flavor of what it is like. Braude even comments that he feels it is important to quote more so that the reader can get a feel for how the communications at a trance medium's seance "flow." I don't know the answer to some of the questions you raise without looking at Hodgson's original paper.

Would it be possible for you or Clancie to check? (Not asking for the transcription but just to check if it just the books that show this editing not the original source.

Originally posted by Mike D.

If we discount the doll's name, Dinah, we are still left with five specific names, all of which, according to the Suttons, are accurate. I have no claim to make about this fragment other than to point that out (and of course, to say that it is obviously very different from how JE comes up with names, whether or not it is due to a difference in style).

Mike

This is why I wanted to know more about the set-up. The 5 specific names would seem to be "special hits", but something strikes me as being strange about this since the names are so specific and reportedly accurate yet the rest of the reading doesn’t reflect this.

It also appears that the Suttons brought specific items to the reading? Is this the case?

(By the way I’ve ordered the Braude book and still considering the subscription fee could end up being an expensive thread!)

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 07:58 AM

Darat,

I can't check right now, but perhaps later in the day.

To answer your other question, yes, the Suttons did bring items to the sitting, such as the silver medal and the buttons.

Mike

Clancie

6th March 2004, 08:12 AM

Posted by Darat

Would it be possible for you or Clancie to check? (Not asking for the transcription but just to check if it just the books that show this editing not the original source.
Hi Darat,
Sorry I'm a little rushed this a.m. so I'll address your other observations a little later. But, yes, I can clear up the issue of editing that you noticed.

My mistake, I guess, to type it up the way I did. Gauld has it paragraphed differently (I suppose like the original transcription and uses "He" meaning Piper/Phinuit both of which I found made it more difficult to read in book form, but thought would be totally incomprehensible if I typed it "as is" here. I tried to make it easier to follow, with quotes and parentheses and trying to clarify who was speaking. Sorry. I thought you just wanted the flavor for what her readings were like (since there's really not enough to judge her from one small snippet--she was extensively studied for 27 years) and, as Mike says, Braude's version has more detail

Here's how it actually is in the book:

Phinuit said....A little child is coming to you....He reaches out his hands as to a child and says coaxingly: Come here, dear. Don't be afraid. Come, darling. Here is your mother. He describes the child and her 'lovely curls'. Where is Papa? Want Papa. [He (i.e.Phinuit) takes from the table a silver medal]. I want this, want to bite it. [She used to bite it]. Reaches for a string of buttons. Quick! I want to put them in my mouth! [The buttons also. To bite the buttons was forbidden. He exactly imitated her arch manner]....Who is Dodo? [Her name for her brother George] ...I want you to call Dodo. Tell Dodo I am happy. Cry for me no more. [Puts hand to throat] No sore throat any more. [She had pain and distress of the throat and tongue.] Papa, speak to me. Can you not see me? I am not dead. I am living. I am happy with Grandma. [My mother had been dead many years]
Phinuit says: Here are two more. One, two, three, here, --one older and one younger than Kakie. [Correct]

Was this little one's tongue very dry? She keeps showing me her tongue. [Her tongue was paralysed and she suffered much with it to the end.] Her name is Katherine. [Correct] She calls herself Kakie. She passed out last.[Correct]. Where is horsey? [I gave him a little horsey]. Big horsey, not this little one. [Probably refers to a toy car-horse she used to like] Papa, want to go wide [ride] horsey. [She pleaded this all through her illness]

[I ask if she remembers anything after she was brought downstairs]. I was so hot, my head was so hot. [Correct]....Do not cry for me - that makes me sad. Eleanor. I want Eleanor. [Eleanor was her little sister. She called for her much during her last illness.] I want my buttons. Row, row, - my song,..sing it now. I sing with you. [We sing and a soft child voice sings with us]

Lightly row, lightly row,
O'er the merry waves we go,
Smoothly glide smoothly glide,
With the ebbing tide.

[Phinuit hushes us, and Kakie finishes alone.]

Let the wind and waters be
Mingled with our melody,
Sing and float, sing and float,
In our little boat.

....Kakie sings: Bye, bye, ba bye, bye, bye, O baby bye. Sing that with me Papa. [Papa and Kakie sing. These were the two songs she used to sing.] Where is Dinah? I want Dinah. [Dinah was an old black rag doll, not with us.] I want Bagie. [Her nickname for her sister Margaret.] I want Bagie to bring me my Dinah....Tell Dodo when you see him that I love him. Dear Dodo. He used to march with me. He put me way up." [Correct].....

And, yes, I also wondered if they'd brought various items with them (sounded like it). I think it wasn't so much the special hits (which as you mention is mainly hits on names in this excerpt at least, or perhaps the feeling of personality that she was able to bring through (an important feature to the sitter, but one not easily quantified and measured).

But -if- you accept that hot reading and fraud were ruled out (and there was no evidence of cheating in the 27 years she was studied), Mrs. Piper's readings seemed to give very good indication of anomalous cognition.

Whether better explained as mediumship or super-psi might be a harder judgment call, imo, but I think what I know of her work appears quite compelling (as trance mediums generally seem. Her style of reading and Mrs. Walsh, whom Steve saw, both offered specific information to anonymous sitters that is not as easy to dismiss as "cold reading", imo).

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 09:10 AM

Darat,

I just found out that the Boston Public Library says they have a run of SPR publications back to the earliest issues. If I have a chance today I'll go there and do some reading. I find it easier to read lengthy things in hard copy rather than online.

Mike

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 09:15 AM

Clancie,

You really are a piece of work. You are asked for a transcript, and then you deliver something which you have edited - heavily, it turns out - without giving any indication that you did.

Incredible.

Good thing you came clean when Darat told us that he will be able to check your transcript, and perhaps help give a more complete picture.

I agree that the transcript is "totally incomprehensible". But is this really the best? If the best example is, in your opinion, "totally incomprehensible", what does that say for the rest?

I am a little puzzled, though, at your conclusion: That Piper's readings "seemed to give very good indication of anomalous cognition."

The reason I am puzzled is because TLN was asking you for "some good demos of so-called mediumship", to which you answered "Mrs. Piper. Your turn."

So far, according to you, we have not seen a "good demo" of "mediumship", but something that "seemed to give very good indication of anomalous cognition." And, it is even "totally incomprehensible".

So, where are those good demos of so-called mediumship?

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Clancie,

Thanks for the transcript. I have a few problems with it, the biggest being that this is Phinuit "coming through". Since we have established that Phinuit is not a spirit, but an "artificial personality", we are talking about telepathy instead of mediumship.

Provided, of course, that Piper could read minds. The problem is that Piper (or Phinuit) is clearly communicating with a dead person - telepathically, that is.

What do we actually have here?

Piper is not talking to a dead person, her artificial personality Phinuit is telepathically getting information from a dead person.

Sorry, but there are simply too many weak links in this chain.

And this is the best example of mediumship so far? Not impressive at all.

Claus,

If we assume for a moment that a given trance medium is not a conscious fraud and also that his or her controls are highly likely to be artificial personalities created by the medium's subconscious mind, then we are left with the very problem you seem to be talking about here: the controls claim to be real spirits who are relaying messages from other real spirits, but how would that work if we can see that the controls themselves appear to be only artificial "props" if you will, to help carry on the drama of purported spirit communication.

There seem to be two ways that have been proposed to deal with this situation (once again, assuming for the moment that fraud has been ruled out, and assuming that sufficient specific and accurate information about a deceased person has appeared during a seance). One involves the notion of "super psi," which obviously postulates that some sort of psi faculty can exist, but does not necessarily postulate survival of death or the existence of real spirits. In this case, the whole drama of the medium's control relaying information from a spirit is seen as an ultimately artificial dramatization of information about the deceased that the medium has picked up telepathically from perhaps the minds of the sitters, and then dramatized in such a way during the seance to more or less convincingly seem as though the actual spirit of the deceased is communicating, when in fact, no such thing is happening at all, and the deceased may no longer even exist.

The other way of dealing with the problem has been called the theory of "overshadowing." This theory is definitely a survivalist theory and says that, while the whole trance drama involving a "control," (and put on by the mediums's subconscious mind) is artificial, somewhere behind it all is the real spirit of the deceased, and that the medium is picking up some information and thoughts of the deceased from the actual spirit. In this case, the medium's subconscious mind would be somewhat like a the mind of a talented author who is writing a play about a famous person. The author might interview the person and pick up many facts about that person as well as subtle aspects of that individual's personality. The resulting play would be to a great extent the creative work of the author but perhaps still manage to incorporate actual lines spoken during the interview with the famous person as well as conveying a sense of the famous person's personality. But the play as well could also include lines and action that would not quite ring true to those who knew the famous person.

I believe that taking many of the communications of trance mediums at face value is very problematic for reasons we have already discussed.

If one comes to feel that conscious fraud is unlikely with a given medium, and also that anomalous cognition could possibly exist -- and the medium is producing impressive information -- then I think that one is inevitably forced to consider some of the ideas I discussed above.

Mike

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 10:15 AM

Mike D.,

That is a loooot of assumptions....

People are on very thin ice, when they begin inventing more and more complex explanations, instead of accepting that these purported mediums do not give anything else than what we expect from a cold reader and/or a psychic at a fair. I do therefore not agree that it is even worth the time considering these very convoluted explanations.

Add to that, I find the research to be sloppy, unprofessional and full of fraud and incompetence. This does not give me the greatest confidence in the researchers' abilities to prevent fraud.

I am actually somewhat disappointed with Mrs. Piper. This is nothing like what was promised.

Is this really the best?? Come on, after more than a hundred years?

Darat

6th March 2004, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.
Darat,

I just found out that the Boston Public Library says they have a run of SPR publications back to the earliest issues. If I have a chance today I'll go there and do some reading. I find it easier to read lengthy things in hard copy rather than online.

Mike

That would be fantastic - thanks for even considering it.

Clancie

6th March 2004, 10:18 AM

Hi Mike,

I like what you've said above and hope you don't mind that I wanted to list it out just for emphasis. I think these are all important and, would only add that the information produced does not seem consistent with what we would expect from cold reading (again, a judgment call...as is, imo, making the distinction between super-psi and mediumship for a given medium).

Posted by Mike D

If one comes to feel that

conscious fraud is unlikely with a given medium, and

anomalous cognition could possibly exist and

the medium is producing impressive information

then I think that one is inevitably forced to consider some of the ideas I discussed above.

re: overshadowing. At the moment, I tend to favor this explanation for controls, as it is also consistent with the communication process described by mental mediums--bits and pieces of information telepathically coming through that must be synthesized either by a conscious process (mental mediumship) or subconscious one (trance medium/control). Of course, if one accepts the premise of anomalous cognition....even accepts that spirit communication may be occurring...I still think we have to distinguish between super-psi information and spirit communication...again, probably at this point relegated to an individual judgment call based on one's understanding of a reading and the most likely meaning/source of the validated information.

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Mike D.,

That is a loooot of assumptions....

People are on very thin ice, when they begin inventing more and more complex explanations, instead of accepting that these purported mediums do not give anything else than what we expect from a cold reader and/or a psychic at a fair. I do therefore not agree that it is even worth the time considering these very convoluted explanations.

Add to that, I find the research to be sloppy, unprofessional and full of fraud and incompetence. This does not give me the greatest confidence in the researchers' abilities to prevent fraud.

I am actually somewhat disappointed with Mrs. Piper. This is nothing like what was promised.

Is this really the best?? Come on, after more than a hundred years?

Claus,

Actually, very little information about Mrs. Piper has been presented in this thread, compared to the large amount of information about her that exists.

What original research on Mrs. Piper have you studied that you find to be "sloppy, unprofessional and full of fraud and incompetence?"

Mike

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 10:26 AM

Mike D.,

Sorry, I should have been more clear: I was speaking generally of paranormal research. We also see e.g. Sheldrake and Schwartz invent more and more complex explanations, and we've also been through their less-than-impressive abilities to set up proper controls.

Interesting Ian

6th March 2004, 10:37 AM

I was talking to this woman on msn messenger about 3am this morning. I mentioned I was reading this University parapsychology text book, and she said oooooh that she wouldn't fancy reading it because she's frightened of the dark! :eek: :eek: :confused:

I really need to find some more appropriate msn buddies to communicate with! LOL

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I was talking to this woman on msn messenger about 3am this morning. I mentioned I was reading this University parapsychology text book, and she said oooooh that she wouldn't fancy reading it because she's frightened of the dark! :eek: :eek: :confused:

I really need to find some more appropriate msn buddies to communicate with! LOL

You need to stop drinking.

Darat

6th March 2004, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi Darat,
Sorry I'm a little rushed this a.m. so I'll address your other observations a little later. But, yes, I can clear up the issue of editing that you noticed.

Again thanks for the work. Looking at your re-typed transcript I'm even more confused. Was it Piper saying "He describes the child and her 'lovely curls'." or was that the recorder, recording that Piper described the little girl but the recorder didn't take the details down? Mike has said he might be able to check it if he gets the time, any chance you could do the same?

And yes I am being cheeky and a bit of skinflint but this editing or not recording all the details is a very important point as it goes to the heart of whether we can even begin to consider these transcripts evidence of anything.

Originally posted by Clancie

And, yes, I also wondered if they'd brought various items with them (sounded like it). I think it wasn't so much the special hits (which as you mention is mainly hits on names in this excerpt at least, or perhaps the feeling of personality that she was able to bring through (an important feature to the sitter, but one not easily quantified and measured).

But -if- you accept that hot reading and fraud were ruled out (and there was no evidence of cheating in the 27 years she was studied), Mrs. Piper's readings seemed to give very good indication of anomalous cognition.

But if you look at the explanations (see Mike's post for examples) that are required to support that she may have been able to do something "anomalous" I think that you have to also accept at least a likely conclusion is that she could have been a fraud, albeit one never caught. Especially since we do know other mediums have been frauds.

Originally posted by Clancie

Whether better explained as mediumship or super-psi might be a harder judgment call, imo, but I think what I know of her work appears quite compelling (as trance mediums generally seem. Her style of reading and Mrs. Walsh, whom Steve saw, both offered specific information to anonymous sitters that is not as easy to dismiss as "cold reading", imo).

Well let’s see if this transcript stands up to a reasonable scrutiny for whether it shows signs of editing or non-recording of details.

So far I certainly don't find this compelling evidence that someone can communicate with the dead, I'm quite surprised you do.

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Darat

That would be fantastic - thanks for even considering it.

Darat,

I called the Boston Public Library back and they now tell me that the volume is offsite, so I asked them to call it back. They said it will be there Monday afternoon, and they will hold it there for a week for me. So I will go look at it as soon as I can.

Mike

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Darat

But if you look at the explanations (see Mike's post for examples) that are required to support that she may have been able to do something "anomalous" I think that you have to also accept at least a likely conclusion is that she could have been a fraud, albeit one never caught. Especially since we do know other mediums have been frauds.

Darat,

I think the only way to approach whether Mrs. Piper engaged in conscious fraud is to look at what safeguards against fraud the investigators had in place in each case. And then come to an assessment of how likely or unlikely it was that she was able to commit fraud given the safeguards employed.

Mike

Interesting Ian

6th March 2004, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You need to stop drinking.

Huh?? :confused: I haven't been drinking.

Darat

6th March 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi Mike,

I like what you've said above and hope you don't mind that I wanted to list it out just for emphasis. I think these are all important and, would only add that the information produced does not seem consistent with what we would expect from cold reading (again, a judgment call...as is, imo, making the distinction between super-psi and mediumship for a given medium).

I wouldn't get caught up in a belief that somehow "cold reading" as we all know it and love it is the only explanation apart from real mediumship that could explain how a medium seemingly communicates with the dead.

Originally posted by Clancie

re: overshadowing. At the moment, I tend to favor this explanation for controls, as it is also consistent with the communication process described by mental mediums--bits and pieces of information telepathically coming through that must be synthesized either by a conscious process (mental mediumship) or subconscious one (trance medium/control). Of course, if one accepts the premise of anomalous cognition....even accepts that spirit communication may be occurring...I still think we have to distinguish between super-psi information and spirit communication...again, probably at this point relegated to an individual judgment call based on one's understanding of a reading and the most likely meaning/source of the validated information.

This begins to get very convoluted. How come the mediums don’t know what they are doing, are these trances involuntary?

This "super-psi" v. "spirit communication" seems to have explanatory strength e.g. any possible combination of success or failure of a medium to do what she or he claims they can do can be accommodated however it has no predictive strength e.g. we can’t rule any result out! With that in mind what is the point of doing any experiments since you can never put any controls in place and when any result can support your theory?

Darat

6th March 2004, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.

Darat,

I think the only way to approach whether Mrs. Piper engaged in conscious fraud is to look at what safeguards against fraud the investigators had in place in each case. And then come to an assessment of how likely or unlikely it was that she was able to commit fraud given the safeguards employed.

Mike

I understand your point but I do have to disagree (especially with such old records and cases) as it would be hard to spot fraud from the records we have if the investigators didn't see evidence of fraud at the time. I do agree however if extensive safeguards that appear watertight are reported to be in place then the assumption that fraud is less likely to have happened is a reasonable starting assumption.

Clancie

6th March 2004, 11:13 AM

Posted by Darat

Was it Piper saying "He describes the child and her 'lovely curls'." or was that the recorder, recording that Piper described the little girl but the recorder didn't take the details down?
Well, that's why I reformatted it and tried to make clear who was speaking when I typed it here. Its clearer in the book. Also, as I mentioned before, Gauld says, "It must be understood that throughout Phinuit speaks and gesticulates on behalf of the child communicator; she does not 'control' herself. The annotations in square brackets are by Mrs. Sutton."

Mike has said he might be able to check it if he gets the time, any chance you could do the same?
What am I checking for? I'm confused.

The first way I typed it was my effort to reformat it so that you can see who is talking. The second is as Gauld wrote it in the book. Except for a careless error (and, as I mentioned before, intentionally leaving out the song lyrics) there's really no difference between the two transcripts. The first one, if nothing else, makes it clear who seems to be speaking, acting out, etc. as I read it in the book. That was the sole reason I reformatted it, for clarity.

So...ummm...What was the question? :confused: I can't think of anything else to add.

And yes I am being cheeky and a bit of skinflint but this editing or not recording all the details is a very important point as it goes to the heart of whether we can even begin to consider these transcripts evidence of anything.
Well, other than a careless error and the song lyrics (which I was just too lazy to type) I -did- record all the details. I merely reformatted it to try to clarify for you what was more obvious in a printed text than it would be online. I didn't "edit" it....although I agree that the ellipses (which I left in in both of my type-ups) indicate that Gauld did. Nevertheless, as I say, she was studied for 27 years. No short excerpt of her work, no matter how complete, is going to be all that compelling taken apart from the exhaustive studies of -all- of her documented readings that were done. Its the patterns of consistency...with no evidence of fraud...that have impressed people like Braude and Gauld.

But if you look at the explanations (see Mike's post for examples) that are required to support that she may have been able to do something "anomalous" I think that you have to also accept at least a likely conclusion is that she could have been a fraud, albeit one never caught. Especially since we do know other mediums have been frauds.
No, I don't see that that follows that what appears to be anomalous cognition must instead be thought of as most likely being fraud that was never detected.

And that other mediums have been detected as frauds is irrelevant, imo, to Mrs. Piper. We know there are frauds, but that hardly proves that every medium is a fraud....or even makes it the most likely explanation for apparent anomalous cognition.

There have also been other mediums who evidenced (at a minimum) abilities that seemed more consistent with anomalous cognition than any other explanation--and, like Piper, they were also not found fraudulent. I do not think we can just dismiss people's work as being "most likely fraudulent" when absolutely no indication of fraud is found.

Well let’s see if this transcript stands up to a reasonable scrutiny for whether it shows signs of editing or non-recording of details.

Well, yes, but also you'll want to look at the entire reading to see if it shows patterns of specific information being given to the sitter that the medium would not have known, or been likely to correctly guess.

So far I certainly don't find this compelling evidence that someone can communicate with the dead,
Well, I'm not surprised. Its not a transcript (or excerpted transcript) that impresses people about Piper, Darat. Its the consistency of her body of work, the patterns that were seen in 27 years of studying her. There are hundreds of SPR pages documenting research into her work; I never expected one small excerpt to sway you to believing in her abilties at all. That wasn't the purpose for posting it.

And as for my comment to TLN recommending her....I think if someone -does- want to look at a compelling medium, then they should read whatever they can about Piper (and, yes, I never said one transcript snippet would do the job. I only provide it because...I can...I assume if he's really interested in the answer to his question...and now has a name recommended to him...that he would go look at the extensive materials available documenting Piper's work (or at least the authors who've written about her) if, as I assume, his question reflected genuine interest in having some in-depth knowledge of a medium who is considered one of the most compelling. If he didn't know one to look into, then now he has the name of one of the most respected (and someone whose work is well documented over a long period of time).

With that in mind what is the point of doing any experiments since you can never put any controls in place and when any result can support your theory?
Actually, I think it would be better for experiments to focus on things that -can- be measured, for example, apports or brain waves during trance. I doubt that the subjectivity of actual readings can ever be eliminated to the extent needed for an actual "experiment".

Interesting Ian

6th March 2004, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Darat

But if you look at the explanations (see Mike's post for examples) that are required to support that she may have been able to do something "anomalous" I think that you have to also accept at least a likely conclusion is that she could have been a fraud,

How on earth is this a likely conclusion?? :eek: She was investigated extensively by the skeptic Hodgson who had already exposed many fake mediums, and he took quite extraordinary measures to rule out cheating. Sure, it is always going to be very difficult to rule out a medium getting information through normal channels. But how can you claim it's a likely conclusion??

Tell me your reasoning here.

albeit one never caught. Especially since we do know other mediums have been frauds.

This is absolutely completely utterly irrelevant.

Interesting Ian

6th March 2004, 11:31 AM

Hmmmm . .think I might be more sympathetic to the overshadowing thesis than superpsi.

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Darat

How come the mediums don’t know what they are doing, are these trances involuntary?

Darat,

The state of trance is said to be at state of dissociation, during which, if it goes deep enough, the primary personality of the medium loses consciousness and "loses time," much like a person under general anesthesia. During this state of unconsiousness of the primary personality of the medium, other personalities, persumably created by the medium's subconscious mind (or spirits, if you take spiritualist theory seriously), will "control" the medium's neuromuscular apparatus and communicate. When the medium comes out of trance, he or she professes lack of awareness of anything that has transpired during the period of trance, and often will listen to reports or recordings of the proceedings with interest.

As I mentioned before, the conscious Mrs. Piper once questioned in an interview whether dead people were really communicating through her, and the medium Eileen Garrett not only questioned whether the dead spoke through her (Garrett), but also believed that her own controls (for example, her control "Uvani") were likely her own subconscious creations that emerged while she (her primary personality) was unconscious during trance.

Mike

Darat

6th March 2004, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, that's why I reformatted it and tried to make clear who was speaking when I typed it here. Its clearer in the book. Also, as I mentioned before, Gauld says, "It must be understood that throughout Phinuit speaks and gesticulates on behalf of the child communicator; she does not 'control' herself. The annotations in square brackets are by Mrs. Sutton."

What am I checking for? I'm confused.

...snip...

I'll just quickly deal with this and get back to you later on your other points.

I freely admit I could just be being dense here but both transcribings of yours say:

"He describes the child and her 'lovely curls'."

But I still can't work out who is saying this and what I want to know is which one of the following it is:

Piper as her control describing the girl (but then why the "he"?)

or

The recorder recording that Piper as her control described the little girl but the recorder didn't note down anything other then the fact that the girl was described and the 'lovely curls' (this is the one that I believe would undermine the veracity of the transcript)

or

Piper, as Piper saying that her control was describing the little girl to her but Piper didn't mention anything of that description apart from the fact the girl had 'lovely curls'.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion of my confusion!

So what I am asking for is for either you or Mike to go back to your original research source and check which it is (or I suppose it could remain ambiguous even in the original source which would be annoying).

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Darat

But I still can't work out who is saying this and what I want to know is which one of the following it is:

Piper as her control describing the girl (but then why the "he"?)

or

The recorder recording that Piper as her control described the little girl but the recorder didn't note down anything other then the fact that the girl was described and the 'lovely curls' (this is the one that I believe would undermine the veracity of the transcript)

or

Piper, as Piper saying that her control was describing the little girl to her but Piper didn't mention anything of that description apart from the fact the girl had 'lovely curls'.

Darat,

Well, it wouldn't be Piper as Piper since the claim is that she was unconscious during the entire proceedings.

As for your first option above, it seems to me likely that the "he" refers to the control Dr. Phinuit (who claimed to be the spirit of a male French doctor), who is claiming to relay messages from Kakie.

Mike

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 11:51 AM

"Reformatted" it? That's a new one...

I find it interesting, that even though effort is put into providing a transcript (even twice, once in a unannounced "reformatted" version, and then in the original version) that will supposedly show a "good demo of so-called mediumship", we are pointed to 27 years of studies.

But only after it comes out that the transcript was deemed "totally incomprehensive". By the person who claims that the medium in question had a "good demo of so-called mediumship".

Why claim the "demo" exists, if we need to go through 27 years of studies?

It smells like the astrologers, when they demand that skeptics study for 20 years, before skeptics are even allowed to ask questions about astrology.

I think we are wasting our time here, guys. We won't see anything that even remotely looks like mediumship here. What we do see is yet another grand claim, reduced to nothingness when exposed to the skeptical eye.

Sorry, I ain't buying.

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.
As for your first option above, it seems to me likely that the "he" refers to the control Dr. Phinuit (who claimed to be the spirit of a male French doctor), who is claiming to relay messages from Kakie.

Yeah, but Phinuit wasn't the spirit of a male French doctor, was he? He was an artificial personality of Mrs. Piper's.

So, it is Mrs. Piper. Right?

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yeah, but Phinuit wasn't the spirit of a male French doctor, was he? He was an artificial personality of Mrs. Piper's.

So, it is Mrs. Piper. Right?

Claus,

I think a somewhat rough analogy here is that a dream character who speaks and acts in your dream is in a sense an "artificial personality" your mind has created. Let's say that you are reporting upon waking in the morning the activities and sayings of a female character in a dream you had. Even though you know that the character was entirely a creation of your own mind, I doubt you would report what that character said by saying "I said..." I imagine you would say "She said..."

Mike

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 12:16 PM

Mike D.,

I can see where you are going with your analogy, but it all depends on Piper really being unconscious - and we don't know that for sure. That would require an EEG, something that was not available in those days.

To assume that she was unconscious and work from there is a waste of time. We simply don't know.

The following explanations are therefore worthless. They are based on nothing but guesswork.

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Mike D.,

I can see where you are going with your analogy, but it all depends on Piper really being unconscious - and we don't know that for sure. That would require an EEG, something that was not available in those days.

To assume that she was unconscious and work from there is a waste of time. We simply don't know.

The following explanations are therefore worthless. They are based on nothing but guesswork.

Claus,

I'm not making a claim here about whether or not Mrs. Piper was really unconscious. I simply put forth the analogy in an attempt to help explain why things being said by the control personality were reported as being said by "he," rather than "she."

Mike

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Mike D.,

I can see where you are going with your analogy, but it all depends on Piper really being unconscious - and we don't know that for sure. That would require an EEG, something that was not available in those days.

What Claus has said here makes me wonder what an EEG would show when the primary personality of the medium is allegedly unconscious during deep trance and other personalities are speaking. It seems likely to me whatever personality speaking would experience consciousness during its time "on stage" so to speak, so perhaps the EEG would indicate that consciousness was present and in itself would tell us nothing as to whether or not the primary personality of the medium was unconscious.

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 12:38 PM

Mike D.,

I know. I am not attacking you, I am pointing out that the researchers are basing their explanations on nothing but guesswork.

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 12:43 PM

Mike D.,

An EEG would tell you if you were conscious or not.

Your explanation that an EEG would show nothing, because a different personality would take over is exactly what I am talking about: You invent explanations, based on guesswork, so the medium's performance can be interpreted as paranormal.

If not through EEG, how are you going to determine whether a person is unconscious or not?

T'ai Chi

6th March 2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I think we are wasting our time here, guys. We won't see anything that even remotely looks like mediumship here.

You're free then, as usual, to leave.

What we do see is yet another grand claim, reduced to nothingness when exposed to the skeptical eye.

Not your skeptical eye, that's for sure. You say you won't even read the research because it is a waste of time.

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 01:01 PM

When one begins to read more in depth about Mrs. Piper's mediumship, one can find unusual things reported. For example, there was a period where investigators reported that during her seances one alleged communicator would communicate about a particular topic through the use of her voice, while simultaneously another alleged communicator would communicate on an entirely different topic through using her hand to produce "automatic writing."

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You're free then, as usual, to leave.

You'd love that, I know.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Not your skeptical eye, that's for sure. You say you won't even read the research because it is a waste of time.

Never said that I wouldn't read it. Lying now, eh?

Do you think you could contribute with something substantial, instead of going for personal attacks?

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Mike D.
When one begins to read more in depth about Mrs. Piper's mediumship, one can find unusual things reported. For example, there was a period where investigators reported that during her seances one alleged communicator would communicate about a particular topic through the use of her voice, while simultaneously another alleged communicator would communicate on an entirely different topic through using her hand to produce "automatic writing."

In any research, you can find unusual things reported. What is important is, can these things be verified?

I'm afraid that if Piper kept changing her performance, going through what very much looks like the standard ruses employed by known fake mediums, it does not speak well of her paranormal abilities. It raises suspicion that she simply tried, tried and tried, until she found something that would impress the researchers.

We even see this today with John Edward, Sylvia Browne, James van Praagh, etc. They change their schtick over time, adapting to the times.

If not through EEG, how are you going to determine whether a person is unconscious or not?

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If not through EEG, how are you going to determine whether a person is unconscious or not?

Claus,

I don't know.

Mike

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Mike D.
I don't know.

So, you agree that any explanation, based on the state of Piper's consciousness, is worthless?

T'ai Chi

6th March 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You'd love that, I know.

I could care less.

Now every report of unconsciousness pre-EKG is immediately suspicious! :rolleyes: What next?

Never said that I wouldn't read it. Lying now, eh?

You're correct. You never did say you wouldn't read it. I retract that statement of mine as I was incorrect. See, I admit I'm wrong. You didn't have the balls to say you were wrong, when you quoted me incorrectly. Figures.

It would have been more correct to say that you won't consider it, as you've said:

"I do therefore not agree that it is even worth the time considering these very convoluted explanations."

and

"I think we are wasting our time here, guys."

Do you think you could contribute with something substantial, instead of going for personal attacks?

Telling Ian to stop drinking; is that personal or sticking to the substantial?

Let us know!

Boriinnggg...

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

In any research, you can find unusual things reported. What is important is, can these things be verified?

I'm afraid that if Piper kept changing her performance, going through what very much looks like the standard ruses employed by known fake mediums, it does not speak well of her paranormal abilities. It raises suspicion that she simply tried, tried and tried, until she found something that would impress the researchers.

Claus,

Was it a standard ruse of known fake mediums to produce voice communications on one topic and automatic writing on a completely different topic simultaneously?

One thing I think would be interesting to do if I had the time is to try to find out if in the annals of psychopathology anything similar has been reported, i.e., one individual simultaneously producing information on one topic through voice and information on a completely different topic through writiing. I mean whether or not this phenomenon has ever been recorded apart from a spiritistic framework.

Mike

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, you agree that any explanation, based on the state of Piper's consciousness, is worthless?

I wouldn't use the term, "worthless." I would say that one could still devise explanations based on an indidivual's self-reporting of his or her own state, but that nailing these explanatons down with the hard science of EEG tracings would likely be problematic. I don't think I know enough about this area to comment any further than that.

Clancie

6th March 2004, 02:03 PM

Posted by Darat

I'll just quickly deal with this and get back to you later on your other points.

I freely admit I could just be being dense here but both transcribings of yours say:

"He describes the child and her 'lovely curls'."

But I still can't work out who is saying this and what I want to know is which one of the following it is:

Piper as her control describing the girl (but then why the "he"?)

or

The recorder recording that Piper as her control described the little girl but the recorder didn't note down anything other then the fact that the girl was described and the 'lovely curls' (this is the one that I believe would undermine the veracity of the transcript)

or

Piper, as Piper saying that her control was describing the little girl to her but Piper didn't mention anything of that description apart from the fact the girl had 'lovely curls'.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion of my confusion!

So what I am asking for is for either you or Mike to go back to your original research source and check which it is (or I suppose it could remain ambiguous even in the original source which would be annoying).
Well, I'm still not sure I understand. I gave Gauld's intro "It must be understood that throughout Phinuit speaks and sometimes gesticulates) on behalf of the child communicator; she does not 'control' herself. The annotations in square brakets are by Mrs. Sutton."

As for how the excerpt begins...
Phinuit said...A little child is coming to you...He reaches out his hands as to a child and says coaxingly: Come here...
As I say, I reformatted it to indicate Piper/Phinuit/medium were speaking since the note taker most often referred to Piper as "he" (meaning Phinuit). I took it that this was the meaning of "He" in the sentence above as well, since the child communicator was female.
Posted by Mike D

so perhaps the EEG would indicate that consciousness was present and in itself would tell us nothing as to whether or not the primary personality of the medium was unconscious.
Yes, Mike, perhaps so. Or, possibly it would show a dramatically different EEG when a medium was in trance. How to interpret that would be an issue at that point, but just being able to measure a physical change while a medium was in trance would be, imo, useful information.

I don't know if an EEG would show any change or not, but it is one of the few things about mediumship (and related phenomena) that can -possibly- be measured in a controlled setting...and replicated...so I still think it would be interesting to see if any unusual patterns turned up or not.

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

I don't know if an EEG would show any change or not, but it is one of the few things about mediumship (and related phenomena) that can -possibly- be measured in a controlled setting...and replicated...so I still think it would be interesting to see if any unusual patterns turned up or not.

I agree that this would be interesting to see.

Kopji

6th March 2004, 02:08 PM

I was interested to find that Mrs Piper had her own honest doubts about whether she was actually communicating with the dead or not. Question: If she did not know for sure, how can we, a century later, be expected to be more confident than her?

Also, the 'controls' mentioned are spoken of as actual spirits. This seemingly authoritative article make no mention that they were thought to be 'artificial' entities. Which is it? If they were not actually real, this biographical link seems highly deceptive.

Source (http://www.fst.org/piper.htm)
...Mrs. Piper was subject only once to the shadow of doubt. On October 20, 1901, the New York Herald published a statement of Mrs. Piper, advertised as a confession, in which she was quoted to say that she intended to give up the work she had been doing for the Society for Psychical Research. She was quoted as saying:

"The theory of telepathy strongly appeals to me as the most plausible and genuinely scientific solution . . . I do not believe that spirits of the dead have spoken through me when I have been in the trance state . . . It may be that they have, but I do not affirm it."

Mrs. Piper was infuriated that the facts of her comments had been so badly twisted and proclaimed as a confession. On October 25, 1901, she stated in The Boston Advertiser:

"I did not make any such statement as that published in the New York Herald to the effect that spirits of the departed do not control me . . . My opinion is today as it was eighteen years ago. Spirits of the departed may have controlled and they may have not. I confess that I do not know. I have not changed."

Clancie

6th March 2004, 02:10 PM

Darat,

I still don't think I understand your question, but I suppose another possibility is that Piper/Phinuit offered more description than the note taker wrote down and instead she summarized it as "He describes the child" then adds his specific mention that she gets of "her 'lovely curls'".

I don't think its any clearer than this from the Gauld excerpt. When I have a chance I'll see if Braude's gives more detail that might address your question (which I'm still not really sure that I understand. I -do- think the note taker's phrasing of that first sentence is different from the rest of the transcript, if she's summarizing rather than telling all that Phinuit says).

Kopji,

I don't see why Mrs. Piper should know any more about what exactly was happening to her than anyone else does, maybe even less, if you assume she was really in trance.

I don't see anything suspicious at all about her honest feeling that (paraphrasing), "I don't know where this information comes from either."

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Kopji
Also, the 'controls' mentioned are spoken of as actual spirits. This seemingly authoritative article make no mention that they were thought to be 'artificial' entities. Which is it? If they were not actually real, this biographical link seems highly deceptive.

Kopji,

The idea that at least some of Mrs. Piper's controls (like Dr. Phinuit) were likely artificial personalities created by Mrs. Piper's subconscious mind is one that was held by people investigating her. What you quote here reflects Piper's own uncertainty about the issue, but does not mention what the investigators thought of controls like Dr. Phinuit.

Mike

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Mike D.
Was it a standard ruse of known fake mediums to produce voice communications on one topic and automatic writing on a completely different topic simultaneously?

The ruses do not change into valid forms of spirit communication by being combined. As I said, mediums adapt their techniques to the circumstances. ("Times" was a bad choice of word)

Originally posted by Mike D.
One thing I think would be interesting to do if I had the time is to try to find out if in the annals of psychopathology anything similar has been reported, i.e., one individual simultaneously producing information on one topic through voice and information on a completely different topic through writiing. I mean whether or not this phenomenon has ever been recorded apart from a spiritistic framework.

Why? You still lack the verification that the medium is unconscious.

Again, you shift focus away from the damning (lack of) facts, and go elsewhere to seek an explanation. You do realize this, don't you?

Originally posted by Mike D.
I wouldn't use the term, "worthless." I would say that one could still devise explanations based on an indidivual's self-reporting of his or her own state, but that nailing these explanatons down with the hard science of EEG tracings would likely be problematic. I don't think I know enough about this area to comment any further than that.

But we know that people are not very reliable when it comes to describing their own state. That, in itself, would require that they are conscious.

How are you going to get an unconscious person to communicate their state? You would never know if someone was unconscious, because they could simply be conscious and not answer your question. Does that render them unconscious?

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't know if an EEG would show any change or not, but it is one of the few things about mediumship (and related phenomena) that can -possibly- be measured in a controlled setting...and replicated...so I still think it would be interesting to see if any unusual patterns turned up or not.

Schwartz used EEGs (and ECGs) in his Arizona Abominations, but only compared them to the sitters' readings. However, he did not mention any deviation in the readings of the mediums.

Granted, the mediums did not claim to go into a trance.

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Why? You still lack the verification that the medium is unconscious.

Again, you shift focus away from the damning (lack of) facts, and go elsewhere to seek an explanation. You do realize this, don't you?

I just think it would be interesting to read about, and no, I am not trying to shift the focus away from damning or lack of facts. I deny this categorically.

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

But we know that people are not very reliable when it comes to describing their own state. That, in itself, would require that they are conscious.

How are you going to get an unconscious person to communicate their state? You would never know if someone was unconscious, because they could simply be conscious and not answer your question. Does that render them unconscious?

I can tell you that when I once had an operation under genereal anesthesia I was unconscious during that time and remember nothing of the operation. Are you highly suspicious that my statement is unreliable? Is my statement "worthless" as a description of my state at that time?

Clancie

6th March 2004, 02:39 PM

Posted by Mike D

I just think it would be interesting to read about, and no, I am not trying to shift the focus away from damning or lack of facts. I deny this categorically.
I haven't seen the slightest indication of that at all, in any of your posts, Mike. And I know you're not a "believer" either--but that you're genuinely interested in the various aspects and possibilities of mediumship and have an interest in detail that leads you to really research things and--that other intellectual asset--a genuinely inquiring mind.

But...I digress....

re: Piper's trance state. Actually, while I feel it would be interesting to me to -know- if brain waves change during a trance and if an EEG could consistently meaure that....in reality, I'm not sure it really matters to mediumship whether a trance state is a measurable state of "altered consciousness" or not.

Ultimately, I think the issue I might look at most in a reading isn't if someone is or isn't in trance but if we can (1) rule out cheating; (2) examine the information that comes through and eliminate things that would be consistent with cold reading; then (3) see if the accurate information that is left makes more sense as lucky guesses...sitter buy-in....super psi....spirit communication...or some combination thereof?

My impression from both Braude and Gauld is that if you accept that cheating has been ruled out, and you rule out things that look like cold reading, the information that is left is more consistent with super psi or spirit communication than with the other possibilities.

CFLarsen

6th March 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Mike D.
I just think it would be interesting to read about, and no, I am not trying to shift the focus away from damning or lack of facts. I deny this categorically.

OK, fine. But I still maintain that there is not much point (then) in seeking evidence elsewhere, since we don't even know what state the mediums were in, when "tested".

You are basing your search on an unknown piece of information. You even admit this.

Originally posted by Mike D.
I can tell you that when I once had an operation under genereal anesthesia I was unconscious during that time and remember nothing of the operation. Are you highly suspicious that my statement is unreliable? Is my statement "worthless" as a description of my state at that time?

No, I would consider your statement to be highly reliable, and for one reason only: You were made unconscious, artificially. We know anesthesia works very well, modern surgery is based on the knowledge that we can cut up people in atrocious ways without them feeling a thing. And I use that word "atrocious" deliberately. Ever seen a hip replacement operation? Or a heart transplant? That's atrocious!

As for trance states? Unless we get a brain scan, we cannot know anything.

How are you going to get an unconscious person to communicate their state?

Kopji

6th March 2004, 03:34 PM

Mike & Clancie
hi, thanks for the reply.
Makes sense I guess. Maybe I am oversensitive to the mentally ill being used by well-meaning people for their own purposes. A concern is that we should be aware of 'three sides': "Supporters", "critics", and "hers". I do not see anything yet that indicates her mental condition could not be taken advantage of by any one of the other 'sides'.

She suffered a physical accident, went for help from a spiritual healer and ended up in a trance instead. The trances were associated with pain, and testers seemed to not have many qualms about inflicting more pain on her to 'test' the trance.

I find this to be a disturbing lack of ethics which may reflect a character flaw in the 'investigators' and also her 'supporters'.

A couple things I have questions on:

One of the principle 'skeptics' who followed her around was named Hodgson. Although always presented as a critic, after his death extremely detailed personal records of all previous sitters were discovered in his possession. These were all returned to the sitters. Do any of these records survive? how do we know the information was not somehow, knowingly or not, fed to Mrs Piper?

Stated all information she divulged was known by at least one person present. This seems a source of the telepathy debate. A central point who may have had all information may have been Hodgson.

The 'control' change from an individual to a group seems coincident with the death of Hodgson. Was it approximately the same time period? (Should be able to see where I'm going with this.)

I'm confused by varying characterizations of the 'Imperator' control change. Some supporters portrayed this as sort of a golden age, and some as 'nonsense'.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/a...ywood/piper.htm
Ultimately G.P. was replaced as Mrs Piper's main control by a band of purported VIPs who unfortunately talked a lot of nonsense. One of them, for instance, who claimed to be George Eliot, said she had met Adam Bede.

Later in life she did not do any 'mediumship', but became what was considered an excellent spiritual counselor in her own right. Her normal untranced skills were "just like" she were channeling advice while not in a trance state. I know of several instances where someone in a religious environment 'got better' after making certain changes in their life. The pattern is familiar. Why not here?

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

How are you going to get an unconscious person to communicate their state?

Obviously, an unconscious person is unable to communicate their state while unconscious. But they can report upon regaining consciousness and being told of what transpired while they were "out," that they remember nothing of it and seem to have "lost time."

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Kopji
Stated all information she divulged was known by at least one person present. This seems a source of the telepathy debate. A central point who may have had all information may have been Hodgson.

Kopji,

Well, there were a number of other people besides Hodgson who investigated her extensively.

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at here. Certainly any investigator who kept careful records of his tests of Mrs. Piper would be intimately aware of what went on during the tests. But they would have not gone into the tests knowing in advance what she would divulge. And of course there were many proxy sittings done where sitters introduced under false names who were brought to her to sit as proxies for other sitters who were completely blinded to the medium and were not even present at the seance.

Mike

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Kopji

One of the principle 'skeptics' who followed her around was named Hodgson. Although always presented as a critic, after his death extremely detailed personal records of all previous sitters were discovered in his possession. These were all returned to the sitters. Do any of these records survive? how do we know the information was not somehow, knowingly or not, fed to Mrs Piper?

Kopji,

I don't know anything about these records. And have never read anyone claim that Hodgson was anything other than scrupulous about keeping Mrs. Piper ignorant of anything about the sitters used in his tests.

As for Hodgson, he was known as an extreme skeptic and acnowledged expert in fraud and the exposure of fradulent mediums. When he first undertook to test Mrs. Piper, he was confident she would be next on his list of exposures. But over a period of time in working with her he gradually came to feel that it was likely that she had genuine anomalous cognitive abilities.

Mike

The Mighty Thor

6th March 2004, 05:19 PM

I've heard of networks of psychics who swap information on sitters via 'blue books'. If the Sutton's were regular attenders of other mediums, I think this means that them being introduced 'anonymously' is suspect, especially if the family have taken along artifacts. Most kids want to put buttons and stuff in their mouths. I smell fraud.

malc

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 05:21 PM

Kopji,

Regarding what you referred to above as the "telepathy debate," the super-psi hypothesis says that a medium need not be picking up information telepathically from someone literally present at the seance. It says that mediums could be accessing information about the deceased that is present in the minds of anyone anywhere.

Mike

Clancie

6th March 2004, 05:32 PM

Darat,

I just looked through Braude. His transcript is of a much longer (and overlapping) part of the Kakie reading but has no ellipses and from his comments it seems that, unlike Gauld, his excerpt is unedited (at least as far as it goes).

However, it is still typed/paragraphed as in the much-shorter Gauld example above, and takes up over three pages--with no interruptions from Braude.

So, too long, I think, to transcribe here and be readable. Braude uses some bolding to help make things clearer, but that still wouldn't be helpful enough if one didn't have a printed text to look at. :(

Anyway, at least we -do- have relatively easy access via Braude to an unedited part of the reading (from the very beginning and extending over three uninterrupted pages).

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 05:34 PM

Kopji,

Here is a summary I wrote of the material covered by Stephen Braude in his introduction to Mrs. Piper in his book, Immortal Remains. I'm copying it here in hopes that the chronological information in it might help with your questions. Remember, I'm just summarizing the material I read in Braude, not offering my personal opinions.

Mike

Braude begins this section by saying: “Perhaps no case of mediumship is stronger or more thoroughly documented than that of Mrs. Leonora E. Piper (1857-1950)."

Mrs. Piper began practicing mediumship in 1884. She had fallen into a trance while visiting a “healing medium” while seeking relief from a physical problem she had at the time. People reported that evidential messages purporting to come from deceased individuals came through Mrs. Piper while in trance, and her career as a medium was launched.

Mrs. Piper’s mediumship involved her allegedly being taken over by “spirit controls” who would act in a “master of ceremonies” capacity and also relay messages from the spirits of deceased friends and relatives of the sitters at Mrs. Piper’s séances. Among her first controls were a group of “spirits” that were considered to be unconvincing as to their being actual spirits of the dead. These early controls were soon supplanted by a control named Dr. Phinuit, who claimed to be the spirit of a deceased French physician. Phinuit was Mrs. Piper’s principal control until 1892. Although Phinuit often communicated startlingly evidential material during séances, he was unable to provide convincing evidence that he himself was who he claimed to be. For one thing, he knew little French, and for another, investigation turned up no historical record of such a person having ever existed.

In 1892, Dr. Phinuit was gradually replaced by a new control, “G. P.” (George Pellew). Ulike Dr. Phinuit and Mrs. Piper’s earlier controls, GP’s former earthly existence was easily verified, as he had been an acquaintance of Richard Hodgson, one of the investigators of Mrs. Piper. And GP gave striking evidence that was highly suggestive of his actually being who he said he was. However, this evidence was not totally conclusive, because in his earthly life, GP was highly knowledgeable in the fields of literature and philosophy, but during séances was unable to speak in-depth about these fields if the knowledge required went beyond Mrs. Piper’s own knowledge of these subjects.

Near the end of Dr. Phinuit’s reign, sometimes he would communicate through Mrs. Piper by voice while another communicator would simultaneously communicate through Mrs. Piper’s hand by means of automatic writing.

In 1897, GP was supplanted by a group of “high spirits” who acted as Mrs. Piper’s controls and would discourse at length on religious, philosophical and (pseudo)scientific topics. There was much less emphasis during this period on bringing through evidential messages from deceased friends and loved ones.

In 1905, following the death of Richard Hodgson, a communicator purporting to be Hodgson’s spirit began frequently communicating as a control of Mrs. Piper and the communications once again reverted back to taking the form of providing evidential communications from deceased friends and loved ones of sitters.

Around 1909, Mrs. Piper found it increasingly difficult to go into trance for the purpose of producing voice communications, and in 1911, these communications stopped altogether. But Mrs. Piper was still able to do automatic writing, and eventually was one of the mediums involved the famous “cross correspondences” case, which Braude discusses later.

Braude concludes this section by discussing the group of distinguished investigators who studied Mrs. Piper’s mediumship. These include, among others, individuals of the stature of psychologist William James, as well as Richard Hodgson. When Hodgson began studying Mrs. Piper in 1887, he had already become well known as an extreme skeptic and acknowledged expert in detecting fraud. Indeed, Hodgson had a reputation for mercilessly exposing fraudulent mediums. Hodgson and other investigators took pains to institute rigorous controls to guard against fraud on the part of Mrs. Piper. These included selecting sitters at random, introducing them under pseudonyms, and also conducting “proxy sittings.” Mrs. Piper was also taken to England where she’d never been and apparently knew no one, but continued to produce evidential material there. In addition, Hodgson had her trailed by private detectives. Mrs. Piper always freely cooperated with investigators and was never detected in fraud.

Most investigators who studied Mrs. Piper’s mediumship concluded that something paranormal was going on in her best work, but they were not in agreement over which paranormal explanation was best. Some, like Hodgson, were ultimately convinced of survival by Mrs. Piper’s mediumship. Others wondered whether telepathy or super psi type explanations might better fit the evidence.

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by malcolmdl
I've heard of networks of psychics who swap information on sitters via 'blue books'. If the Sutton's were regular attenders of other mediums, I think this means that them being introduced 'anonymously' is suspect, especially if the family have taken along artifacts. Most kids want to put buttons and stuff in their mouths. I smell fraud.

malc

malc,

While I've never heard anyone make allegations that Mrs. Piper was part of a "blue book" network, one possibility that -was- raised is known as the "grapevine theory." It is that Mrs. Piper may have gradually over time naturally, and without necessarily intending to commit fraud, pick up facts about potential sitters in the Boston area where she lived, only to have these facts come out during seances. Alan Gauld, in his book, Mediumship and Survival, has this to say about the grapevine theory (page 37):

The chief investigators in the Piper case were well aware of the dangers in question, and made every effort to avert them by anonymously bringing to her a substantial sprinkling of sitters from as far afield as possible, and by taking her on several extended trips to England.

Mike

The Mighty Thor

6th March 2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Mike D.

malc,

While I've never heard anyone make allegations that Mrs. Piper was part of a "blue book" network, one possibility that -was- raised is known as the "grapevine theory." It is that Mrs. Piper may have gradually over time naturally, and without necessarily intending to commit fraud, pick up facts about potential sitters in the Boston area where she lived, only to have these facts come out during seances. Alan Gauld, in his book, Mediumship and Survival, has this to say about the grapevine theory (page 37):

Mike

Yep. It is certainly an intriguing case. I hope to see more discussion of it here.

malc

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Kopji

I'm confused by varying characterizations of the 'Imperator' control change. Some supporters portrayed this as sort of a golden age, and some as 'nonsense'.

Kopji,

Well, I've periodically run into spiritualists (meaning those who fervently believe that the dead regularly speak through mediums and also impart inspired spiritual teachings), who in my opinion are prone to accept at face value anything that comes out of a medium's mouth. While others, even those who think there may sometimes be something genuinely paranormal going on with the best mediums, tend to look at the utterances of mediums much more critically. It would be interesting to look to see which camp your varying sources might fall into.

Personally, I think that any critically thinking person would be likely to reject as "nonsense," for instance, an assertion by a "spirit" that the spirt is George Eliot and has met Adam Bede in the afterlife. But I'm not so sure that one who habitually believed in any and all "spirit utterances," would feel the same way.

In his Mediumship and Survival, Alan Gauld discusses the "nonsense" that was sometimes spoken by the more dubious controls of Mrs. Piper and other mediums (page 115). The controls sometimes excused themselves by saying that controlling the medium's body had a "confusing" effect on them. Gauld says (page 115):

The confusion which obliterates the controls' grasp of science and philosophy does not prevent them from spouting reams of pompous nonsense upon religious and philosophical topics and presenting it as profoundest truth, sometimes in the teeth of the sitters' queries; so that we have to attribute to them not just confusion but downright talespinning...

Mike

The Mighty Thor

6th March 2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Mike D.

Kopji,

Well, I've periodically run into spiritualists (meaning those who fervently believe that the dead regularly speak through mediums and also impart inspired spiritual teachings), who in my opinion are prone to accept at face value anything that comes out of a medium's mouth. While others, even those who think there may sometimes be something genuinely paranormal going on with the best mediums, tend to look at the utterances of mediums much more critically. It would be interesting to look to see which camp your varying sources might fall into.

Personally, I think that any critically thinking person would be likely to reject as "nonsense," for instance, an assertion by a "spirit" that the spirt is George Eliot and has met Adam Bede in the afterlife. But I'm not so sure that one who habitually believed in any and all "spirit utterances," would feel the same way.

In his Mediumship and Survival, Alan Gauld discusses the "nonsense" that was sometimes spoken by the more dubious controls of Mrs. Piper and other mediums (page 115). The controls sometimes excused themselves by saying that controlling the medium's body had a "confusing" effect on them. Gauld says (page 115):

Mike

Thanks for posting that last bit. It's like asking why Jesus as God didn't reveal that the solar system is heliocentric, or some other astounding scientific revelation. Well, In his 'fully human' guise he couldn't contain all the knowledge that God (omniscient) has.

So, they say . . .

malc

Kopji

6th March 2004, 08:28 PM

Mike
Thanks,

My sources were all from places that seemed sympathetic to mediumship.

I put a little timeline together to mostly help myself sort things out.

Mrs Piper:
1857 – Born
1879 – (circa) Married at age 22 to William Piper
Started consulting with Dr JR Cooke

1884-1892 Phinuit
1888-1889 – Dr Hyslop joins investigation
Does 88 readings between Nov and Feb (England) whew!
1890 – Olivier Lodge publishes paper in England
1897 – ‘Imperator’ group introduced (more formal and religious)
1901 – ‘Moment of doubt?’
1905 – Dr Hodgson dies unexpectedly in accident
Dr Hyslop fights to release extensive information on sitters, but fails.
1911 – ‘Suspension of mediumship’ predicted by Mrs Piper
1915 – Oliver Lodge son’s death messages (Not sure how she relates to this event)
1950 – died

My question did not really focus on Mrs Piper herself, but on the claims of the skeptical investigators. The 'skeptics' seem to be associated with the same 'Psychical Research' institution. Dr Hodgson is presented as a skeptic of the first order, but he finally accepted that since he could not explain the trances, he accepts that there is survival after death. Now maybe I'm being harsh here, but that sounds like a believer to me.

Since he was a believer, he might also be sympathetic enough to work with one or more of the others in promoting a hoax. It has been stated on several of the medium sites that he was responsible for exposing several fakes. I would be extremely interested in reading any actual accounts, or copies of articles he wrote while in England for the Psychical newsletter. It is hard to nail down what kind of person he actually is.

Consider by the timeline, that he might be one member of a hoax involving at least two people not Mrs Piper. One of the medium's contacts being a close friend of his who recently died is extremely curious.

The Hodgson Fellowship at Harvard
Another attempt to interest the universities in psychical research was made after the death of Dr. Richard Hodgson (1855-1905). Dr. Hodgson was secretary to the American SPR from 1887 until his death, and, as a memorial, a number of his friends established the 'Hodgson Fellowship in Psychical Research,' tenable at Harvard. A fund was raised, but was found insufficient to provide for such a fellowship adequately, and for the expenses likely to be incurred in experiments and investigations. Accordingly, the American SPR, by resolution of its Executive Committee, agreed to contribute the excess over the income from the Hodgson bequest. They guaranteed to augment the fund to $3,000 for the academic years 1922-3 on condition that if the report of the work done should not be published by Harvard University, it could be issued by the American SPR This arrangement was accepted by the University.

Olivier Lodge
Lodge was duped by a fake medium named Eusapia Paladino in 1884. I find his credibility as a skeptic researcher to be low. Here is a list of books he has authored:

Sir Oliver Lodge, F.R.S., D.Sc., LL.D., "Man and The Universe" (Methuen & Co., London, 1908); "The Survival of Man" (Methuen & Co., London, 1909); "Reason and Belief" (Methuen & Co., London, 1910); "Modern Problems" (Methuen & Co., London, 1912); "The Substance of Faith" (Methuen & Co., London, 1915); "Raymond, or Life and Death" (Methuen & Co., London, 1916); "The Survival of Man" (George H. Doran Co., New York, 1920); "The Making of Man" (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1924); "Ether and Reality" (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1925); "Why I Believe in Personal Immortality" (Cassell & Co., London, 1928). Other books written by Sir Oliver Lodge include:
Life and Matter, 1912; Science and Religion, 1914; The War and After, 1915; Christopher, 1918; Raymond Revised, 1922; Relativity, 1926; Evolution and Creation, 1926; Science and Human Progress, 1927; Modern Scientific Ideas, 1927; Phantom Walls, 1929; Beyond Physics, 1930; The Reality of a Spiritual World, 1930; Conviction of Survival, 1930; Past Years, 1932; and My Philosophy, 1933

Nuff said

Dr Hyslop
He was one who apparently fought to have the papers on the sitters released. (He failed). A list of his books:

James Hervey Hyslop (1854-1920). Professor of Logic and Ethics, Columbia University, New York. "Borderland of Psychical Research" (Small, Maynard & Co., Boston); "Enigmas of Psychical Research" (Small, Maynard & Co, Boston); "Psychical Research and the Resurrection" (Small, Maynard & Co., Boston, 1908); "Science and a Future Life" (Herbert B. Turner & Co., Boston, 1905); "Contact with the Other World" (Century Co., New York, 1919).

1911 Encyclopedia
(Ain't the Internet great!)

(The typos are in the source and might be artifacts of ocr)

II. The genuineness of trance mediumship can no longer be called in ouestion. The problem for solution is the source of the information. The best observed case is that of Mrs Pipef of Boston; at the outsetof her career, in 1884, she did not differ from the ordinary American trance medium. In 1885 the attention of Prt~fessor William James of Harvard was attracted to her; and for twenty years she remained under the supervision of the Society for Psychical Research. During that period three phases may be distinguished: (1) 1884-1891, trance utterances of a control calling himself Dr Phinuit, a French physician, of whose existence in the body no trace can be found; (2) 1892-1896, automatic writing by a control known as George Pelham, the pseudonym of a young American author; (3) 1896 onwards, supervision by controls purporting to be identical with those associated with Stainton Moses. There is no evidence for regarding Mrs Piper as anything but absolutely honest. Much of the Piper material remains unpublished, partly on account of its intimate character. Many of those to whom the taommunicatjons were made have been convinced that the controls are none other than discarnate spirits. Probably nO absolute proof of identity can be given, though the reading of sealed letters would come near it; these have been left by more than one prominent psychical researcher, but so far the controls who claim to be the writers of them have failed to give their contents, even approximately.
1911 Encyclopedia Online
http://54.1911encyclopedia.org/M/ME/MEDIUM.htm

My point on that one is that 1911 entry reflects the mindset of a different, less critical age. The fake fairy pictures that so fooled Conan Doyle and many others look silly today. We are different, more skeptical people than existed then. Even if all these researchers were perfectly honest, there remains a problem with using the evidence from 100 years ago to convince us today of this 'truth'.

T'ai Chi

6th March 2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Mike D.
Kopji,
Regarding what you referred to above as the "telepathy debate," the super-psi hypothesis says that a medium need not be picking up information telepathically from someone literally present at the seance. It says that mediums could be accessing information about the deceased that is present in the minds of anyone anywhere.

Mike

Mike,

I am very interested in reading more on the 'super-psi' hypothesis and the other (which I remember seeing, but forget the name of) hypothesis.

Is there a site or other resource you could point me to?

Thanks in advance. :)

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Mike,

I am very interested in reading more on the 'super-psi' hypothesis and the other (which I remember seeing, but forget the name of) hypothesis.

Is there a site or other resource you could point me to?

Thanks in advance. :)

T'ai Chi,

Here is a link for you:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/braude/superpsi.htm

Mike

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Kopji

My question did not really focus on Mrs Piper herself, but on the claims of the skeptical investigators. The 'skeptics' seem to be associated with the same 'Psychical Research' institution. Dr Hodgson is presented as a skeptic of the first order, but he finally accepted that since he could not explain the trances, he accepts that there is survival after death. Now maybe I'm being harsh here, but that sounds like a believer to me.

Since he was a believer, he might also be sympathetic enough to work with one or more of the others in promoting a hoax. It has been stated on several of the medium sites that he was responsible for exposing several fakes. I would be extremely interested in reading any actual accounts, or copies of articles he wrote while in England for the Psychical newsletter. It is hard to nail down what kind of person he actually is.

Consider by the timeline, that he might be one member of a hoax involving at least two people not Mrs Piper. One of the medium's contacts being a close friend of his who recently died is extremely curious.

Kopji,

I would characterize Richard Hodgson as a skeptic who gradually over a long period which included exposing fake mediums ultimately came to believe in survival of death due to his experiences with Mrs. Piper. I know of no evidence that he was involved in any hoaxes, and to suggest that he could have been seems purely speculative to me in the absense of evidence.

As for reading articles and papers by Hodgson, you can find a large volume of material by him published in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research.

The Society for Psychical Research (which has a website) was organized in the 1880s by a group of scientists and scholars interested in subjecting the claims of the paranormal to scientific study.

Mike

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Kopji

We are different, more skeptical people than existed then.

This seems to me to be quite a generalization. I think it would be hard to demonstrate one way or another, but personally I think that there were plenty of skeptical people in the nineteenth century.

Mike D.

6th March 2004, 09:23 PM

T'ai Chi,

Hope you enjoyed the article on the super-psi hypothesis I provided the link for in response to your post. I want to add here that if you can get hold of a copy of Alan Gauld's book, Mediumship and Survival: A Century of Investigations, check out Chapter 10, entitled, "'Overshadowing' and the Super-ESP [Super-Psi] Hypothesis -- the Data."

Mike

Kopji

6th March 2004, 11:17 PM

Mike
Thanks for the good replys.

The 1911 article indicates that at that publishing, the Piper data had not been published yet. This was many years after the events in question. Till now, the implication has been that there was some public review or discussion of the events. That had not occurred by 1911?

A less broad and sweeping generalization:
Hodgson had a close and personal relationship with a person who died, and would later become a 'control'. After Hodgson's untimely death, it was discovered in his possession detailed personal information about 'sitters' at the séances (is that the right term?) This information contained personal things the sitters did not feel free to tell anyone else. He was someone they felt they could trust.

The presence of this previously unknown dataset raises the questions of how it was used.

Modern researchers would question his credibility as a valid investigator because of this. That the Psychical Institute did not, is a specific example of how they were less skeptical than we are today.

CFLarsen

7th March 2004, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.
Obviously, an unconscious person is unable to communicate their state while unconscious. But they can report upon regaining consciousness and being told of what transpired while they were "out," that they remember nothing of it and seem to have "lost time."

But we would have to trust the medium entirely, wouldn't we? We would only have the word of the medium that the medium was really unconscious.

Premise:
Medium can give spiritual messages. Since medium is unconscious when this happens, it is taken as evidence that she really is getting spiritual messages.

Scenario:
Medium is unconscious.
Medium gives spiritual messages.
Medium is conscious again.
Medium is asked if she remembers anything that went on while unconscious.
Medium says "No".
Medium is therefore judged to have been unconscious.
Medium's messages are therefore taken as real spiritual messages.

Sorry, I ain't buyin'.

Originally posted by Mike D.
In 1892, Dr. Phinuit was gradually replaced by a new control, “G. P.” (George Pellew). Ulike Dr. Phinuit and Mrs. Piper’s earlier controls, GP’s former earthly existence was easily verified, as he had been an acquaintance of Richard Hodgson, one of the investigators of Mrs. Piper. And GP gave striking evidence that was highly suggestive of his actually being who he said he was. However, this evidence was not totally conclusive, because in his earthly life, GP was highly knowledgeable in the fields of literature and philosophy, but during séances was unable to speak in-depth about these fields if the knowledge required went beyond Mrs. Piper’s own knowledge of these subjects.

This caught my eye.

Allow me to draw a parallel: John Edward and the "Dateline" incident. "Dateline" wanted to look at JE, even from a critical POV. Host John Hockenberry says:

John Hockenberry: Still, something else happened that night in the group readings. A departed family member does seem to come through loud and clear.
...
John Hockenberry: For, of all people, "Dateline" cameramen Tony Pagano, one of two cameramen shooting our story.
Source (http://www.johnedwardfriends.org/transcripts/Dateline111700d.htm)

Both mediums are under scrutiny. Their earlier attempts of mediumship have turned out to be not very convincing to the investigators. Then, something spiritual happens to those who investigates them.

What could be more convincing than to have real, verifiable information coming through to those who doubt the skeptic? Call me crazy, but I do see a very strong parallel here.

That Piper - as GP - is not able to give in-depth information about GP's real life fields very strongly speaks in favor of this happening: It is possible to dig up a few personal pieces of information about just about any person, but to be challenged about what they have learned throughout the years in detail? Very hard.

"The chief investigators in the Piper case were well aware of the dangers in question, and made every effort to avert them by anonymously bringing to her a substantial sprinkling of sitters from as far afield as possible, and by taking her on several extended trips to England."

Ever read 18th and 19th Century books? You always hear about people (mostly women) who write to their acquaintances in other towns for information about certain people (usually possible suitors to love-struck women). Letter writing was a very important part of everyday life among at least the upper part of society to keep informed about what happened in the social circles. With no phones, letters were a means to gather information.

Originally posted by Mike D.
I would characterize Richard Hodgson as a skeptic who gradually over a long period which included exposing fake mediums ultimately came to believe in survival of death due to his experiences with Mrs. Piper. I know of no evidence that he was involved in any hoaxes, and to suggest that he could have been seems purely speculative to me in the absense of evidence.

Clancie has hinted at this too: No sign of fraud is taken as evidence that the medium is real. Yeah, but it doesn't hold water.

T'ai Chi

7th March 2004, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.
T'ai Chi,

Hope you enjoyed the article on the super-psi hypothesis I provided the link for in response to your post. I want to add here that if you can get hold of a copy of Alan Gauld's book, Mediumship and Survival: A Century of Investigations, check out Chapter 10, entitled, "'Overshadowing' and the Super-ESP [Super-Psi] Hypothesis -- the Data."

Mike

Thanks Mike. Yeah, I found it pretty interesting!

I'll see if I can find Gauld's book in local libraries or for sale online.

Thanks again.

Mike D.

7th March 2004, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by Kopji

The 1911 article indicates that at that publishing, the Piper data had not been published yet. This was many years after the events in question. Till now, the implication has been that there was some public review or discussion of the events. That had not occurred by 1911?

A less broad and sweeping generalization:
Hodgson had a close and personal relationship with a person who died, and would later become a 'control'. After Hodgson's untimely death, it was discovered in his possession detailed personal information about 'sitters' at the séances (is that the right term?) This information contained personal things the sitters did not feel free to tell anyone else. He was someone they felt they could trust.

Kopji,

As I read the 1911 article, it says that much of the Piper remained unpublished at that date. The fact is that a large quantity had been published by that time, and the fact that the article says that much remained unpublished would indicate to me even more just how much material on her had accumulated.

Could you give us your souce for "detailed personal information found in his possession?" Thanks.

In everything I've read about the GP control so far, I see no evidence that would suggest Hodgson was involved in fraud.

Mike

Mike D.

7th March 2004, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

But we would have to trust the medium entirely, wouldn't we? We would only have the word of the medium that the medium was really unconscious.

Premise:
Medium can give spiritual messages. Since medium is unconscious when this happens, it is taken as evidence that she really is getting spiritual messages.

Scenario:
Medium is unconscious.
Medium gives spiritual messages.
Medium is conscious again.
Medium is asked if she remembers anything that went on while unconscious.
Medium says "No".
Medium is therefore judged to have been unconscious.
Medium's messages are therefore taken as real spiritual messages.

Sorry, I ain't buyin'.

Claus,

I don't know of any serious investigator who has proclaimed a medium as "real," based merely on a belief that the medium is unconscious. The strategy appears to be, first to apply controls to rule out the medium getting information through normal sensory channels, and then evaluating the information provided as to its uniqueness and specificity. The issue of unconsciousness is a secondary issue.

Mike

Mike D.

7th March 2004, 04:21 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]

Both mediums are under scrutiny. Their earlier attempts of mediumship have turned out to be not very convincing to the investigators. Then, something spiritual happens to those who investigates them.

What could be more convincing than to have real, verifiable information coming through to those who doubt the skeptic? Call me crazy, but I do see a very strong parallel here.

That Piper - as GP - is not able to give in-depth information about GP's real life fields very strongly speaks in favor of this happening: It is possible to dig up a few personal pieces of information about just about any person, but to be challenged about what they have learned throughout the years in detail? Very hard.[Quote][B]

Claus,

Piper actually from the very beginning of her career produced results that people found to be highly evidential. What was not convincing at that time was the nature of her controls. From what I've read, the GP control was intensely convincing to people who had actually known GP in real life. I would agree that the fact that the GP control could not speak in depth about literature and philosophy raise serious questions as to whether he was a real spirit who had survived death. But it could also fit with the super-psi hypothesis -- Piper's psychic abilities allow her to pick up enough information about GP for her subconscious mind to construct a convincing impersonation of GP, but not enough for the impersonation to be complete.

Mike

Mike D.

7th March 2004, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Ever read 18th and 19th Century books? You always hear about people (mostly women) who write to their acquaintances in other towns for information about certain people (usually possible suitors to love-struck women). Letter writing was a very important part of everyday life among at least the upper part of society to keep informed about what happened in the social circles. With no phones, letters were a means to gather information.

Investigators had Mrs. Piper's private letters opened and read. And I think that the safegaurds against fraud that were employed in England make it highly unlikely that Piper was using letter writing to get information about sitters. Once again, some of the safeguards included sitters being chosen at random at the last minute from far afield, anonymous sitters, and proxy sittings with the medium blinded to the identities of the people the proxies were sitting on behalf of. It doesn't seem likely to me that Mrs. Piper in America somehow was corresponding with numerous people in England from all walks of life who later just happened to have been chosen randomly to be sitters at her seances.

Mike D.

7th March 2004, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Clancie has hinted at this too: No sign of fraud is taken as evidence that the medium is real. Yeah, but it doesn't hold water.

I have never claimed that a medium is "real" because no sign of fraud was detected. If fraud is detected, it certainly raises serious questions about the "reality" of the medium. But in the absence of any detected fraud, I maintain once again that we have to look at the quality of the scientific controls employed by the investigators and the quality of the infomation the medium provides as our primary way of evaluating the medium.

CFLarsen

7th March 2004, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.
I don't know of any serious investigator who has proclaimed a medium as "real," based merely on a belief that the medium is unconscious. The strategy appears to be, first to apply controls to rule out the medium getting information through normal sensory channels, and then evaluating the information provided as to its uniqueness and specificity. The issue of unconsciousness is a secondary issue.

But we cannot possibly rule out the possibility of e.g. hot reading. Add to that, there is no audio/videotapes of the readings, we don't even have complete ad verbatim transcripts. The material is extremely weak.

Originally posted by Mike D.
Piper actually from the very beginning of her career produced results that people found to be highly evidential. What was not convincing at that time was the nature of her controls. From what I've read, the GP control was intensely convincing to people who had actually known GP in real life. I would agree that the fact that the GP control could not speak in depth about literature and philosophy raise serious questions as to whether he was a real spirit who had survived death. But it could also fit with the super-psi hypothesis -- Piper's psychic abilities allow her to pick up enough information about GP for her subconscious mind to construct a convincing impersonation of GP, but not enough for the impersonation to be complete.

There you go again: Inventing an even more complex explanation - "super-psi", instead of simply going with the more natural explanation.

Originally posted by Mike D.
Investigators had Mrs. Piper's private letters opened and read. And I think that the safegaurds against fraud that were employed in England make it highly unlikely that Piper was using letter writing to get information about sitters. Once again, some of the safeguards included sitters being chosen at random at the last minute from far afield, anonymous sitters, and proxy sittings with the medium blinded to the identities of the people the proxies were sitting on behalf of. It doesn't seem likely to me that Mrs. Piper in America somehow was corresponding with numerous people in England from all walks of life who later just happened to have been chosen randomly to be sitters at her seances.

Does it have to be Piper herself who writes the letters?

Originally posted by Mike D.
I have never claimed that a medium is "real" because no sign of fraud was detected. If fraud is detected, it certainly raises serious questions about the "reality" of the medium. But in the absence of any detected fraud, I maintain once again that we have to look at the quality of the scientific controls employed by the investigators and the quality of the infomation the medium provides as our primary way of evaluating the medium.

Even though we have a string of facts that decidedly point towards Piper being a fraud? Pardon me, while I whip out another parallel: Uri Geller. He has also been caught many times, yet his fans (Lucianarchy is one of them) still maintain that he is real, despite of that - simply because he is not caught at all times.

That is, IMO, a very weak position to argue from.

Mike D.

7th March 2004, 06:12 AM

I here state some of my positions:

1. I do not believe in survival of death or in spirit communication, although I remain open to the possibility if evidence should ever come along that would change my mind.

2. My personal experiences with mediums have all been negative, and none of them that I've seen have in my opinion given any evidence of psychic ability, let alone spirit communication.

3. What I've read about certain mediums of the past has led me to a modest and lightly held belief that some of them (e.g. Piper, Leonard, and Garrett) may have exhibited some sort of anomalous cognitive abilties that are as yet unexplained. I do not claim that there is hard scientific evidence of this, and my belief could change as I learn more about these mediums.

5. I do not personally claim that Mrs. Piper is one of the best examples of mediumship. But I do say that some people who have read widely in the field have made this claim.

6. I enjoy playing with ideas. I did not invent things like the super-psi hypothesis and the overshadowing hypothesis, but I enjoy describing them, as well as other ideas and theories, and I enjoy thinking about how alleged evidence might be explained in terms of them. That does not mean that I personally advocate those hypotheses as reality.

7. My original motive in posting a link for TLN was to give him some background information on Piper, when he and Clancie began talking about her. And this morning I've realized that this thread is taking too much of my time and I feel I need to bow out. I think that I and others have posted enough refercences to material on Mrs. Piper that anyone interested can read and learn more for themselves. I think it is inevitable that people will have differing opinions on her and I repsect those opinions.

8. If the Boston Public Library comes through for me this week with the volume of the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research that I requested, I will PM Darat with the information there about the Sutton transcript and he can use it as he wishes.

Clancie

7th March 2004, 08:14 AM

Mike,

I think you've stated the issues around Piper very well and I don't really know how much farther discussion could go anyway. Also, I think if skeptics do look into her -body of work- (not only one reading) and -do- find patterns of information that can't be explained as cheating or cold reading....and yet "cheating" is going to still basically be the default position for them (and I don't just mean what Darat posted...I think that is a -commonly shared- viewpoint here).... then discussion possibilities at that point pretty much draw to a close anyway.

I didn't plan to debate Piper either. (As I recall my question was about cold readers...and so far, ersby's right...According to that thread....he's it!) But if TLN or anyone wants to see an extensively studied medium whose readings were well-documented for many years under strict controls against cheating...Mrs. Piper is a good example and there is a wealth of information about her.

Anyway, thank you for your contributions to the discussion of Piper, Mike. I think it was great to split the thread as Darat suggested because, standing alone, with the resources you've provided and issues you've raised, I think its become one of the more informative threads here on this subject, for anyone who is interested.

Clancie

7th March 2004, 08:18 AM

Posted by Kopji

After Hodgson's untimely death, it was discovered in his possession detailed personal information about 'sitters' at the séances (is that the right term?) This information contained personal things the sitters did not feel free to tell anyone else. He was someone they felt they could trust.
Kopji,

Could you provide a source for this? I've never read anything remotely like it regarding Hodgson. The only person I know of with something similar found was Arthur Ford. Any source for the Hodgson claim (or did I miss it)?

Interesting Ian

7th March 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Mike D.

I can tell you that when I once had an operation under genereal anesthesia I was unconscious during that time and remember nothing of the operation. Are you highly suspicious that my statement is unreliable? Is my statement "worthless" as a description of my state at that time?

Nah, because that's normal. :) Now if you had claimed to have had an "outer body experience", now that's different. Then your statement would have been worthless ;)

CFLarsen

7th March 2004, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
But if TLN or anyone wants to see an extensively studied medium whose readings were well-documented for many years under strict controls against cheating...Mrs. Piper is a good example and there is a wealth of information about her.

But that's not what TLN asked for. He asked for:

Originally posted by TLN
some good demos of so-called mediumship

to which you replied:

Originally posted by Clancie
Here's one. Mrs. Piper.

Your turn.

So, where are those good demos of so-called mediumship by Mrs. Piper, Clancie?

Your turn.

Kopji

7th March 2004, 02:19 PM

Hi,
Here is the link for the comment on the records with details of the sitters:

A third report which Dr. Hodgson intended to publish was cut short by his unexpected death in 1905. Mr. J. G. Piddington came over from England and a committee was formed to dispose of the material on hand. The reports were filled with intimate and personal data concerning the sitters. They trusted Dr. Hodgson but would not trust anybody else. Finally, over the valiant fight of Prof. Hyslop all these reports were returned to the original sitters and the valuable material was lost. Mrs. Piper remained under the jurisdiction of the S.P.R. and the sittings were continued under the charge of Prof. Hyslop.
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/3.htm

I am not sure the primary source for this.

On re-reading this I am not as clear if Dr Hyslop was an advocate for returning the reports, or making them public. Regardless, they were all returned. The manner they are spoken of makes them sound like individual data on each sitter, rather than contents of a book manuscript.

IMHO The Journal for Psychical Research website is first rate though. Might be worth $78 just to read the full stories. The abstracts are Very Cool, and free. Nice search engine, these are indexed pdf's so what is posted are copies of the actual papers and reports, not translations or ocr. The site I'm looking in is the UK one, there might be a second one for the US(?)
http://www.c-far.net/litbase/litbase.jsp

I get the impression that Mrs Piper was quite controversial in her own time. There were a few skeptics who do not tend to appear in the 'supportive' medium sites, but are documented in the Research Journal. I'll post those names.

Mike, I'd love to see some of the actual reports and look forward to it. Have not had time to read the Sutton documents yet. I'll try to remember to post reference links though.

edited to add database link

Kopji

7th March 2004, 03:22 PM

The online database indexes the records and provides a short abstract of their contents. Three samples below, I am not sure if the abstracts are copyright or not these considered samples of a much larger set.

A simple search on the name 'Piper' provided excellent results.

Podmore, Frank. ON PROFESSOR HYSLOP'S REPORT ON HIS SITTINGS WITH MRS PIPER, Proceedings 17,1901-2, pp. 374-88. Analysis of evasions and inaccuracies in the communications described in Hyslop's report convinces Podmore that the spiritist interpretation is unjustified, and that telepathy or ordinary intuition suffice to explain apparently veridical information. Podmore also suggests that the possibility of common fraud by the medium has not been eliminated,

Hyslop, James. REPLY TO MR PODMORE'S CRITICISM, Proceedings 18,1903-4,
pp. 78-102. Hyslop refutes Podmore's individual points relating to Mrs Piper's mediumship and argues that fraud cannot be considered in isolation from a number of other factors arguing against it (90).

Munves, James. RICHARD HODGSON, MRS PIPER AND 'GEORGE PELHAM': A CENTENNIAL REASSESSMENT, Journal 62,1997-8, pp. 138-54. Offers biographical background to the 'GP' communications reported and analysed by Richard Hodgson, who held them to be evidence of survival. The author argues that Piper was able to acquire the information produced by the GP control through normal means <span style="background-color: #ffff99">and suggests that Hodgson, and also William James who first brought the medium to the SPR's attention, were misled by their personal feelings to be less critical than they ought to have been..</span> He also throws doubt on the circumstance's of GP's death and suggests that the communicator's confirmation of the false version weakens the case for survival…

Source: Journal of the Society for Psychical Research

Highlights mine...

“It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.)
On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish useful ideas from the worthless ones. If all ideas have the same validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all.”
-Carl Sagan “The Burden of Skepticism” Pasadena Lecture, 1987
(Quoted in ‘Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer)

...Because I understand the need for openness too.

Garrette

7th March 2004, 08:37 PM

I think, Clancie, that our reticence (meaning the reticence of those on this thread who don't believe Piper was legitimate) lies in the fact that despite all this extensive study and record-keeping, none of the easily available sources are impressive.

I'm considering signing up with the JSPR myself so that I can look at some of these things (though it won't be soon for me) because they do sound interesting.

However, I would think that the most impressive stuff would already be quoted or referenced somewhere.

I don't have the Braude book, but I do have Gauld's and Meyers'. Those three together are the ones that Steve Grenard recommends, yes?

The Gauld book has already been discussed here; the example of Piper's readings in his book is not impressive, nor does it show a pattern, which is what you emphasize.

The Meyer's book is a bit more extensive but demonstrates the same editing as in Gauld. If I get time, which is doubtful, I'll try to transcribe some of the Meyer's book stuff. I have to say, though, that it's no more impressive than Gauld.

In fact, both Meyer and Gauld talk about the strict controls and impossibility of fraud, but the examples given do not, imo, support that stance.

One wonders why such weak examples were chosen if stronger examples exist.

On a different but related issue, let me ask a question about your stance that the "pattern" of performance is really what demonstrates legitimate mediumship. Would you then say that Ian Rowland's performance (the 30 second edited bit and the calendar hit) might not be impressive in itself (to you) but if repeated many times would then indicate that Rowland is as accurate as John Edward because he would then have demonstrated a pattern?

CFLarsen

7th March 2004, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Garrette
One wonders why such weak examples were chosen if stronger examples exist.

Exactly. Where are those killer-readings?

Kopji

8th March 2004, 12:27 AM

Mrs Piper has an almost saintlike status today. She is the gold standard by which all mediums are compared.

I not feeling any better about the possibility that there was fraud involved.

I found this while looking for the primary source for the account of the secret sitter material being returned. This was apparently done at the specific instruction of "Hodgson" at a séance shortly after his death.

I can't believe that over 100 years nobody seems to have questioned this very suspicious act. :(

On Jan. 23rd, 1906 Mrs. Wm. James, and W. James, Jr., had a sitting at which R. H. used the medium's voice and gave a very life-like impression of his presence. The record runs as follows:

Why, there's Billy! Is that Mrs. James and Billy? God bless you! Well, well, well, this is good I [Laughs.] I am in the witness-box [Laughs.] I have found my way, I am here, have patience with me? All is well with me. Don't miss me. Where's William? Give him my love and tell him I shall certainly live to prove all I know. Do you hear me? see me? I am not strong, but have patience with me. I will tell you all. I think I can reach you.
Something on my mind. I want Lodge to know everything. I have seen Myers. I must rest.
(After an interval he comes in again :-)
Billy, where is Billy? What are you writing Billy? Are you having any sports? Would you like to take a swim? [R. H.'s chief association with W. J. Jr., had been when fishing or swimming in Chocorua Lake.] Well, come on I Get a good deal of exercise, but don't overdo it! Perhaps I swam too much. [He undoubtedly had done so.] - I learned my lesson, but I'm just where I wanted to be.
Do you play ball? - tennis? Men will theorize - let them do so! I have found out the truth. I said that if I could get over there I would not make a botch of it. If ever R. H. lived in the body, he is talking now. . . . William [James] is too dogmatic.
<span style="background-color: #ffff99">I want George (Dorr) to extricate all those papers and set those marked "private" aside. This has been on my mind George is to be trusted absolutely with all sincerity and faith. There are some rivate records which I should not wish to have handled. Let George (Dorr) and Piddington go through them and return them to the sitters. </span>The cipher! I made that cipher, and no one living can read it. [Correct.] I shall explain it later. Let Harry [James] and George keep them till then. [They had been appointed administrators of his estate, a fact probably known to Mrs. Piper.] This is the best I have been able to do yet. I spoke with Miss Pope, but this is the best. Remember, every communication must have the human element. I understand better now why I had so little from Myers. [To W. J., Jr.] What discourages you about your art? [W. J., Jr., was studying painting.] Oh what good times we had, fishing! Believe, Billy, wherever you go, whatever you do, there is a God.
http:\\www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/lodge/survival/chapter14.htm

dharlow

8th March 2004, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Kopji
Mrs Piper has an almost saintlike status today. She is the gold standard by which all mediums are compared.

I not feeling any better about the possibility that there was fraud involved.

I found this while looking for the primary source for the account of the secret sitter material being returned. This was apparently done at the specific instruction of "Hodgson" at a séance shortly after his death.

I can't believe that over 100 years nobody seems to have questioned this very suspicious act. :(

What exactly is it that you find suspicious here?

Oleron

8th March 2004, 02:15 AM

I have read the discussion with great interest and would like to agree with Kopji in pointing out the suspicious nature of the 'communication from Hodgson'.

It is certainly not proof of wrong-doing but it casts some doubt on Piper.

When added to her own 'admission', her highly unconvincing French doctor, Kopji listing of the opinions of Hodgson's peers and the prediction I believe she made for Hodgson (that he would marry, have children and live a long life - he died a few months later) - it all adds up to enough reason to doubt her abilities. All circumstantial, I know, but then so is her 'evidence'.

BTW is it not a bit insensitive, even for a medium, to predict someones long life then communicate with them after they are dead? Talk about adding insult to injury.

voidx

8th March 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.
There seem to be two ways that have been proposed to deal with this situation (once again, assuming for the moment that fraud has been ruled out, and assuming that sufficient specific and accurate information about a deceased person has appeared during a seance). One involves the notion of "super psi," which obviously postulates that some sort of psi faculty can exist, but does not necessarily postulate survival of death or the existence of real spirits. In this case, the whole drama of the medium's control relaying information from a spirit is seen as an ultimately artificial dramatization of information about the deceased that the medium has picked up telepathically from perhaps the minds of the sitters, and then dramatized in such a way during the seance to more or less convincingly seem as though the actual spirit of the deceased is communicating, when in fact, no such thing is happening at all, and the deceased may no longer even exist.

This process has been brought up before, and it is still so convoluted that I think its pretty meaningless. Why would this process of deceit be necessary? This seems to me a very obvious attempt at making a complex process fit the results we generally see. While there's nothing wrong with that in a thought exercise, it doesn't make much sense when trying to explain a process of communication. There seems no reason for the dramatization to occur, other than to meld with what we see during seances and trance readings. If one asks the question, why the deceit? and the answer is "I dunno, but its internally consistent", then one has to ask, "yah but why do we posit it then in the first place?".

The other way of dealing with the problem has been called the theory of "overshadowing." This theory is definitely a survivalist theory and says that, while the whole trance drama involving a "control," (and put on by the mediums's subconscious mind) is artificial, somewhere behind it all is the real spirit of the deceased, and that the medium is picking up some information and thoughts of the deceased from the actual spirit. In this case, the medium's subconscious mind would be somewhat like a the mind of a talented author who is writing a play about a famous person. The author might interview the person and pick up many facts about that person as well as subtle aspects of that individual's personality. The resulting play would be to a great extent the creative work of the author but perhaps still manage to incorporate actual lines spoken during the interview with the famous person as well as conveying a sense of the famous person's personality. But the play as well could also include lines and action that would not quite ring true to those who knew the famous person.

Again we are making assumptions that merely fit what we see. This one seems to hinge on the idea that the medium needs a sub-conscious device for filtering the information. But why this is needed has no explanation, other than, well that's kind of like what we see. As mentioned, this theory is left wide open to account for pretty much anything, the last sentence makes that abundantly clear. So its not very good to test by because its so hard to narrow down whats allowed as a proper result through it, and what is not. Or more accurately, that any result coming through is acceptable under this process, so how does it help us narrow down whats going on?

I believe that taking many of the communications of trance mediums at face value is very problematic for reasons we have already discussed.

I most certainly agree.

If one comes to feel that conscious fraud is unlikely with a given medium, and also that anomalous cognition could possibly exist -- and the medium is producing impressive information -- then I think that one is inevitably forced to consider some of the ideas I discussed above.

Consider them certainly, but lets not get ahead of ourselves and start claiming that they are likely, or highly suggestive to be the likely scenario. (Not that you've done this)

Posted by Clancie
re: Piper's trance state. Actually, while I feel it would be interesting to me to -know- if brain waves change during a trance and if an EEG could consistently meaure that....in reality, I'm not sure it really matters to mediumship whether a trance state is a measurable state of "altered consciousness" or not.

Ultimately, I think the issue I might look at most in a reading isn't if someone is or isn't in trance but if we can (1) rule out cheating; (2) examine the information that comes through and eliminate things that would be consistent with cold reading; then (3) see if the accurate information that is left makes more sense as lucky guesses...sitter buy-in....super psi....spirit communication...or some combination thereof?

I strongly disagree that how the "process" works is somehow less important than correlating correct data hits for accuracy and consistency. Their equally as important. We concentrate on the results produced, not because its the better of the two ways of looking at it, but because its the only of the two ways we have a process for and can quantify. Figuring out the process, or having data suggesting possible explanations for the mediumship process itself are just as important. Strong data hits from results merely suggest that there is something going on that we cannot account for. It is not suggestive of an afterlife unless you assume it is. We've no idea whats going on here because we have no concept of how the process works. So anyone that says strong results are indicitive or highly suggestive of survival is off-base in my opinion. That its just telepathy with the sitter seems as likely as that its spirits. So even within the paranormal explanations, its not clear its more suggestive of survival. When you start taking into account potential mundance explanations, it gets muddied even further.

Clancie

8th March 2004, 11:44 AM

Posted by voidx

I strongly disagree that how the "process" works is somehow less important than correlating correct data hits for accuracy and consistency. Their equally as important. We concentrate on the results produced, not because its the better of the two ways of looking at it, but because its the only of the two ways we have a process for and can quantify
Yes, we do disagree. I am increasingly convinced that the subjectivity cannot be removed from validations and, if science is interested in looking for something to measure, they should look at things that can be measured: EEG and apports being the only two I can think of.

Of course, even if EEG showed consistently unusual brain patterns during trance...and even if apports were found to be real and in no way fraudulent...neither of those pieces of information would necessarily impact the arguments pro/con re: survival.

Ultimately, with the kind of information available to us now, I think it will remain an individual judgment call.

(P.S. It can be a lot harder to rate mediums "hits" and "misses"--and even to clearly validate information--than you might think.)

Clancie

8th March 2004, 11:53 AM

Kopji,

Thank you for the references. I must be reading this differently, because I don't see anything indicating that Hodgson interviewed people before their sitting and compiled information which, presumably, he passed on to Piper.

First, he was quite noted for exposing fraud, so it seems inconsistent for him to suddenly want to perpetrate one instead, and I can't see what would be gained by it, (plus having the reputation he'd spent so long to build be so easily destroyed).

Second, If he interviewed sitters in advance about their detailed personal informaiton (like came through in the sittings) and the same information was told to them by Piper, wouldn't someone get suspicious? Wouldn't some comments appear in the transcripts or elsewhere?

On the contrary, until you suggested this, there has never been a hint of fraud from Hodgson or Piper.

Lastly, I think the private information came -after- the sittings, not before them. I think sitters trusted him when they explained the information they validated from the readings.

Have you seen anything to indicate that information in these papers was obtained -prior- to the sittings?

CFLarsen

8th March 2004, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, we do disagree. I am increasingly convinced that the subjectivity cannot be removed from validations and, if science is interested in looking for something to measure, they should look at things that can be measured: EEG and apports being the only two I can think of.

Rubbish. Of course we can objectively decide whether someone had a grandma with a scar on her left calf, or an aunt called Beulah.

We know that if we completely depend on the sitters' subjective validation, we will get a result that is higher than what it really is.

Case in point: Ian Rowland's two examples of cold reading: They were deemed "99,9% accurate" - by the sitters!

Originally posted by Clancie
First, he was quite noted for exposing fraud, so it seems inconsistent for him to suddenly want to perpetrate one instead, and I can't see what would be gained by it, (plus having the reputation he'd spent so long to build be so easily destroyed).

Why would it seem inconsistent? We have actually seen people, who should know better, make a 180 degree turn, and start believing in the most ridiculous things. Doug Henning is one sad case.

Originally posted by Clancie
Second, If he interviewed sitters in advance about their detailed personal informaiton (like came through in the sittings) and the same information was told to them by Piper, wouldn't someone get suspicious? Wouldn't some comments appear in the transcripts or elsewhere?

But isn't that what was supposed to happen?? The information Piper gave was the same as the sitters had already given??

Originally posted by Clancie
Lastly, I think the private information came -after- the sittings, not before them. I think sitters trusted him when they explained the information they validated from the readings.

What do you base this on?

voidx

8th March 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, we do disagree. I am increasingly convinced that the subjectivity cannot be removed from validations and, if science is interested in looking for something to measure, they should look at things that can be measured: EEG and apports being the only two I can think of.

Of course we cannot remove subjectivity and that's my whole point. You are basically saying that the consistency and level of detail in the results produced are what should be concentrated on, but these are what are most affected by said subjectivity. Apports are a result. How the medium produces them from nothingness is the process. Any idea how this process works? If not, then how can we test that apports come from spirits in the afterlife? See my point. While if it could be shown we could say: Medium was able to produce apports even though restrictions were put in place to stop her from doing so in a physical sense. Her continuing to produce Apports would stand in contrast to our physical process'. Our process, under scrutiny, being defeated, that is all that could be assumed. Since you have no process for how the medium might PRODUCE the apport, you cannot test for it. All you can do is point at the failure of our process to explain it, and then assume it supports survival. But that's not a logical assumption at all.

Of course, even if EEG showed consistently unusual brain patterns during trance...and even if apports were found to be real and in no way fraudulent...neither of those pieces of information would necessarily impact the arguments pro/con re: survival.
[quote]
But not knowing what your process is you cannot make this assumption. It could have an impact, since you have no way of knowing one way or the other, by what means do you dismiss it?

[quote]
Ultimately, with the kind of information available to us now, I think it will remain an individual judgment call.

Individual judgement calls are fine for opinions. They are not fine for experimental controls, and for researching, or trying to find explanations for phenomenon. Unless of course their backed up by some sort of process that can be tested.

(P.S. It can be a lot harder to rate mediums "hits" and "misses"--and even to clearly validate information--than you might think.)
Having been in the threads discussing various transcripts of mediums I'm well aware of the disparity of what people consider "hits" and "misses".

Mike D.

8th March 2004, 04:47 PM

Darat,

I just got back from the Boston Public Library, where I looked at Hodgson's paper. I still don't feel I have time to participate in this thread and this will be my last post, but I wanted to come back for a moment and post what I found rather than sending you a PM about it, which is what I said I'd do in an earlier post.

The PSPR back issues are bound into volumes, and this particular paper by Hodgson takes up a good portion of a thick volume.

In the body of the paper, I found the place where Hodgson spends several pages describing and analyzing the Sutton seances. There is a long appendix at the end of the paper where Hodgson has published a large number of transcripts of Piper seances. Most of them seemed to be complete and unabridged, although a few appeared to be summarized or abridged. In the case of the Suttons, there were two sittings, and they are presented with a detailed commentary by Mrs. Sutton, interspersed in brackets throughout the transcripts. It would appear that Mrs. Sutton was asked to report in detail on what was communicated during the seances. and she seems to have presented the original transcripts for the most part in full, with a few exceptions, such as summarizing where Phinuit describes Kakie's "lovely curls." She appears to indicate where she has abridged or summarized.

Although I read through the Sutton transcripts rapidly, I got the feeling that the very small portion quoted in this thread from Gauld's book is inadequate to really give a flavor for what they are like. The longer portion that Braude has presented in his book is better, but he also remarked that what Hodgson originally published is more impressive than even what he presented.

This is all I have to report, and if anyone has further questions, they'll have to have a look themselves. I did not have time to examine the paper and appendix in depth, and have nothing more to add.

Mike

TLN

8th March 2004, 06:06 PM

Sorry, I've been occupied...

Originally posted by Clancie
After all, I asked a question (which only ersby ever addressed). TLN responded by asking me who I thought was a medium worth considering and I said "Mrs. Piper".

When I answered TLN, I wasn't offering to prepare a thorough case of my own on Piper's behalf. At some point I think those who are interested--and have resources presented to them--should put enough of their own effort into reading and forming an opinion, then arguing it out.

It's always the same tried old refrain for you: you haven't researched the subject enough. Never mind this was a woman I had never heard of before you mentioned her, somehow I'm still at fault here. Oh well...

Clanice, I've reviewed everything on Mrs. Piper I can find on the internet from both sides of the debate. One thing bothers me though:

Originally posted by Clancie
But if TLN or anyone wants to see an extensively studied medium whose readings were well-documented for many years under strict controls against cheating...Mrs. Piper is a good example and there is a wealth of information about her.

Where can I view these "strict controls"? I see plenty of anecdotal references to them, but nowhere can I find a description of the testing protocol used with Mrs. Piper.

Can you? May I see it please?

Kopji

8th March 2004, 06:57 PM

Clancie & Mike
Hodgson is presented as a "skeptic" of the first rate, but he's just not. After about 1887 he is a firm believer, and has largely staked his reputation on Piper NOT being a fake.

I've looked at the abstracts of his Journal papers and they seem fairly sympathetic to psychic ability. An early journal indicates he is on an important committee studying mesmerism.

Before he joined the psychic investigations he was a follower of and taught the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. Spencer was an advocate of Social Darwinism, and actual coiner of the term 'survival of the fittest'. This is a fairly stark philosophy.
IMHO Hodgson was quite capable of promoting a hoax just for a private joke on humanity.

Anyway, he collected detailed papers about the sitters, and the papers were returned to them after his death. Maybe they are completely innocent records maybe not... but consider this: If Piper was a fraud (hard to imagine, but let's just suppose), then she KNEW about the existence of the sitter papers. After all she mentioned them a few days after his death and they seemed the main topic of this séance.

The alternative of course, is that she was actually possessed by the spirit of Hodgson and he was was deeply concerned for the privacy of the living.

Why not just conclude the simpler answer that she was aware of these secret papers containing details of the sitters? Had she also viewed them?

TLN

9th March 2004, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by TLN
Where can I view these "strict controls"? I see plenty of anecdotal references to them, but nowhere can I find a description of the testing protocol used with Mrs. Piper.

Can you? May I see it please?

No?

Darat

9th March 2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.
Darat,

I just got back from the Boston Public Library, where I looked at Hodgson's paper. I...snip...

This is all I have to report, and if anyone has further questions, they'll have to have a look themselves. I did not have time to examine the paper and appendix in depth, and have nothing more to add.

Mike

Thank you VERY much for going to this effort Mike.

Loki

9th March 2004, 01:45 PM

Mike D.

Mrs. Piper's transcripts are not of equal quality, as she seems to have had her off days, as well as days when she produced high quality information.
...
Once again, some of the safeguards included sitters being chosen at random at the last minute from far afield, anonymous sitters, and proxy sittings with the medium blinded to the identities of the people the proxies were sitting on behalf of.
Putting your two comments side by side creates a 'window of opportunity' for ambuguity about Mrs Piper, doesn't it? Not all transcripts are of high quality? Not all transcripts were made under the same level of 'safeguards'?

Surely then we need to try and map "quality of transcript" to "quality of safeguard"? It's like the JE debate - once he gets onto LKL the quality dives (even his followers admit this, they simply offer alternative explanations for the quality drop). If Piper did (for instance) 10 readings of "sitters being chosen at random at the last minute from far afield", how many of these are "high quality"? Ten? Five? Two??

Clancie

9th March 2004, 03:00 PM

Posted by TLN

Where can I view these "strict controls"? I see plenty of anecdotal references to them, but nowhere can I find a description of the testing protocol used with Mrs. Piper.

Can you? May I see it please?
TLN,

I think Mike D. already described the controls for the Sutton reading. However, Piper had thousands of sittings that were documented by the SPR and the same controls may not have been used each time so if you're interested in the consistency, etc. of what he described, I suppose you would need to look at procedures for each and every reading. The ones for the Sutton reading have been mentioned already.

Clancie

9th March 2004, 03:08 PM

Posted by Kopji

Before he joined the psychic investigations he was a follower of and taught the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. Spencer was an advocate of Social Darwinism, and actual coiner of the term 'survival of the fittest'. This is a fairly stark philosophy.
IMHO Hodgson was quite capable of promoting a hoax just for a private joke on humanity.
Wow, Kopji, With all due respect I don't see how being Spencerian and believing in Social Darwinism would make one likely to perpetrate a hoax and turn your whole career around to become someone knowingly promoting fraud. (Didn't he still like Spencer's ideas at the time he exposed Mme. Blavatsky as a fraud? Sorry, but this idea doesn't make any sense to me at all).

Anyway, he collected detailed papers about the sitters, and the papers were returned to them after his death.
Detailed papers, yes. Obviously papers the sitters already knew about, too. Let me ask you, if Hodgson was supporting fraud, why would he want to show sitters copious personal notes he'd taken about them to (presumably) share with Piper?

It makes more sense, as has been said, that this was information sitters gave him after the readings, personal information that explained how the information Piper had given them -was- evidential for them.

TLN

9th March 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
I think Mike D. already described the controls for the Sutton reading. However, Piper had thousands of sittings that were documented by the SPR and the same controls may not have been used each time so if you're interested in the consistency, etc. of what he described, I suppose you would need to look at procedures for each and every reading. The ones for the Sutton reading have been mentioned already.

I don't see any description beyond "cheating was 'controlled' for" and other such platitudes. I don't see an actual testing protocol anywhere, either here or on the sites offered or looked up myself.

I simply assumed since you stated clearly "...whose readings were well-documented for many years under strict controls against cheating," you'd know where I could find these controls in detail. You have seen these controls, haven't you? Or are you simply taking the scientists at their word?

The Mighty Thor

9th March 2004, 07:56 PM

This is a very interesting thread.

I'd like to know if Clancie has changed her mind about Mrs Piper being a convincing case.

It is notable that Hodgson, as he became a believer, seems to have lessened any controls rather than strengthening them. He comes to view Mrs Piper and her daughters as intimate friends. (I wonder if the mother and girls were pretty?) Not a good idea for the researcher to become intimately involved with the subjects, surely?

Can Clancie (or anyone) think of any reasons why Hodgson might have become part of this fraud? Can she think of any ways Mrs Piper might be getting the information on sitters other than paranormally?

Does Clancie agree that we only have Hodgson's word that cheating did not take place?

Clancie

9th March 2004, 08:48 PM

Posted by malcolmdk

I'd like to know if Clancie has changed her mind about Mrs Piper being a convincing case.
Um, no, malcolmdl. Why would I? No one here has even read -one- of her complete transcripts. I can't figure out what all these opinions of her work are based on.

It is notable that Hodgson, as he became a believer
Well, I think he became increasingly convinced that there might be something to ADC, the more he investigated Piper and the more he was convinced that, unlike Blavatsky and others he'd exposed, she was not cheating in any way.

... (he) seems to have lessened any controls rather than strengthening them.
Says who?
Can Clancie (or anyone) think of any reasons why Hodgson might have become part of this fraud?
Um...What fraud is that, Malcolm?

Unlike people here (none of whom have read a transcript--including, and forgive me if I'm wrong, you--Stephen Braude and Alan Gauld have -extensively- studied the research with Piper and found no evidence of fraud whatsoever.
Can she think of any ways Mrs Piper might be getting the information on sitters other than paranormally?
Let's assume that a sitter you have never seen before comes to you, Malcolm, under an assumed name....how would -you- have gotten prior information about her?
Does Clancie agree that we only have Hodgson's word that cheating did not take place?
No. We have Piper's.
(that was intended as a kind of joke :) Just so you know.).

Seriously, though. Hodgson wasn't the only one who studied her. NO investigator found evidence of fraud, not even once. Piper never put conditions on her seances, or how sitters were selected, that would indicate she was cheating.

There's absolutely no evidence of cheating, so it's kind of amusing (just kind of! ) to see how people would start to insist she must have been....based on, as far as I can tell, absolutely nothing but preconceived ideas!

TLN

9th March 2004, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
There's absolutely no evidence of cheating, so it's kind of amusing (just kind of! ) to see how people would start to insist she must have been....based on, as far as I can tell, absolutely nothing but preconceived ideas!

Clanice, where can I see the testing protocol you're so familiar with?

Clancie

9th March 2004, 09:03 PM

TLN,

Here is an excerpt from Alan Gauld's book:
From "Mediumship and Survival"....

...As a result of (Wm) James's report, a leading member of the British SPR came to Boston and assumed charge of the investigation. He was looked on as an expert in the unmasking of fraud. He arranged for the careful recording of all sittings, and took the most extensive precautions against trickery. Sitters were introduced anonymously or psuedonymously, and were drawn from as wide a range of people as possible....For some weeks Mrs. Piper was shadowed by detectives to ascertain whether she made enquiries into the affairs of possible sitters, or employed agents to do so. She was brought to England where she knew no one....During her stay there her sittings were arranged and supervised by leading members of the SPR....And still Mrs. Piper continued to get results.

Of course, TLN, I don't expect you to be satisfied by Gauld's summary since, although it's based on his extensive research into the Piper documents, it's really not nearly detailed enough (especially considering the thousands of sittings she gave). And, of course, my telling you about it is only third hand information--not good at all, in the scheme of things.

Luckily for you, though, if all this partial info is frustrating--you do live in the Bay area so I'm pretty sure that you could do what Mike did and find a library where they archive the SPR documents. (UC Berkeley might even have them). I am pretty sure that many people here really do need to do some investigation on their own, since obviously I am not an authority and Gauld and Braude are only filtering it for us. Good luck!

TLN

9th March 2004, 09:06 PM

Clancie, you're convinced and have stated clearly that cheating was controlled for and eliminated.

How do we know this without being able to scrutinize the testing protocol in detail? Basically, you're taking the above testimonial on faith. That's fine, but it's not going to sway a skeptic.

Clancie

9th March 2004, 09:12 PM

TLN,

I agree completely. Skeptics really should explore it for themselves. I totally understand that.

On a related issue, maybe some of William James's experience with Piper will be of interest. Not "arguing from authority", just sharing. Here's what Gauld says,

Mrs. Piper was 'discovered' for psychical research by William James of Harvard University, arguably the greatest psychologist of that, perhaps of any, time. James was sufficiently impressed by his sittings to send some twenty-five other people to her under pseudonyms.

Here is some of what James said in his account about Piper:

"I am persuaded of the medium's honesty and of the genuineness of her trance; and although at first disposed to think that the 'hits' she made were either lucky coincidence, or the result of knowledge on her part of who the sitter was, and of his or her family affairs, I now believe her to be in possession of a power as yet unexplained."

TLN

9th March 2004, 09:15 PM

Clancie, what you're missing is that 1, I do want to explore it and 2, what I want to explore is the testing protocol.

You can pile up all the fancy sounding testimonials you like, but they don't equal evidence.

Clancie

9th March 2004, 09:19 PM

Posted by TLN

Clancie, what you're missing is that 1, I do want to explore it and 2, what I want to explore is the testing protocol.
No, I didn't miss it, TLN. I'll sum it up again (in one word this time): "library".

:)

TLN

9th March 2004, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

No, I didn't miss it, TLN. I'll sum it up again (in one word this time): "library".

:)

Clanice, that's awfully childish of you. I'm asking you a simple question and you're evading it and telling me "go figure it out for yourself." Come on...

Since you're convinced that cheating was eliminated, can you show me the testing protocol that convinced you of this fact? Or, are you simply taking testimonials on faith.

It's really just one or the other Clancie. Which is it?

Clancie

9th March 2004, 09:29 PM

Posted by TLN

Clanice, that's awfully childish of you. I'm asking you a simple question and you're evading it and telling me "go figure it out for yourself." Come on...

Since you're convinced that cheating was eliminated, can you show me the testing protocol that convinced you of this fact? Or, are you simply taking testimonials on faith.

It's really just one or the other Clancie. Which is it?
Yes, TLN, I think we've established that I'm satisfied with Braude and Gauld's research into and characterization of this and that you're not.

That said, I really think the only way for you to find what you're looking for is to go see for yourself. There's nothing childish about it. It's what people who are dissatisfied with what they've seen or been told need to do. I have a feeling UC Berkeley will have this information for you, too.

I have no doubt that a library will undoubtedly answer your questions far better than I can. (I think that's obvious! )

TLN

9th March 2004, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
That said, I really think the only way for you to find what you're looking for is to go see for yourself.

Clancie, I do what to see it for myself! Where?!

Where can I see the testing protocol? Can't you just tell me? Or is it so hard to admit that you've never seen any protocol at all?

The Mighty Thor

9th March 2004, 11:15 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... (he) seems to have lessened any controls rather than strengthening them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clancie: Says who?

Well, he didn't have her and her husband shadowed all the time. This 'trial period' with strict controls seems to have convinced him that there was no cheating. From then on he appears to have become more and more credulous.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can Clancie (or anyone) think of any reasons why Hodgson might have become part of this fraud?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clancie: Um...What fraud is that, Malcolm?

Yes, I meant 'would have taken part in a fraud regarding mediumship?

I can. I was wondering if you can explore that path.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can she think of any ways Mrs Piper might be getting the information on sitters other than paranormally?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clancie: Let's assume that a sitter you have never seen before comes to you, Malcolm, under an assumed name....how would -you- have gotten prior information about her?

I know how Mrs Piper might have gotten information under such circumstances and how the anonymity could have been compromised.

I was wondering if you can think of any.

BTW, I'm still a newbie here and I'm not baiting Clancie. I'm just wondering if she will use her obviously critical mind to explore some of the possibilities regarding how a Mrs Piper could fool most of the people, most of the time -- even purported skeptics like Hodgson and James.

Kopji

9th March 2004, 11:54 PM

Clancie
The Piper case has been presented as a really good example of mediumship, perhaps the best ever. Looking at the data though, she was obviously controversial in her day. Even after many sittings with her, there remained skeptics and those who suspected fraud. The passing of time has softened these criticisms in people’s memory.

Today, we would call Mrs Piper a franchise of the Psychical Society and in particular Mr Hodgson. All the testing and protocols were created and evaluated by individuals who had a vested interest in keeping the debate going.

When analyzing a problem, I find it useful to create several artificial scenarios and test them to see the implications and results. You seem to be getting upset at my doing this, but there is no malice intended.

One scenario that ‘works’ is Hodgson could willingly cooperate in a hoax (fraud might be too strong a term). Upon even a casual investigation I find several pieces of information that support this distinct possibility.

Is everyone incurious that it was only after his sudden and unexpected death these papers became known? That Piper mentioned them in a séance only days after his death and their handing was of highest importance? So records with information about the sitters that was willfully destroyed. Surely as skeptics they understood the criticism they might come under by destroying data?

Regardless, Hodgson is not the skeptic he is popularly portrayed to be. He was the clerk of the Psychical Society Journal, yet I only found a single account of an exposed medium, and that was someone whose philosophy he greatly disagreed with publicly. Where are the other accounts of the medium exposures? Without supporting data this is just popular myth.

My comment about being a professor who taught on Spencer is simply another scenario. Do I so unquestioningly accept his conversion from skeptic to believer?

There is a scenario where Piper does not communicate with the dead, but has some form of telepathy. This seems to be a working hypothesis for many of the ‘skeptics’. Today we would accept even telepathy as worth a million dollars, but back then it was largely accepted to exist without much question.

Another possibility is that she was an honest questioning person who got in with the Psychical Society over her head, but was smart enough to finally get out after years of being used and abused. Maybe she had something similar to epilepsy, or mild schizophrenia. If she had autistic tendencies, she could have absorbed all kinds of information that could well appear like telepathy or supernatural skills.

She found her way out of the ‘medium’ business and was quite successful. I find it highly unlikely that she willingly perpetrated a hoax, but she could well have been caught up in one gradually.

It’s late, some good news is that I got the ok to spend the $78 So I can read further. I basically enjoy history and this was a colorful and interesting time.

Btw, I have read William James ‘Varieties of Religious Experience’ but gave the book away a while back. A worthwhile read: he is smart guy but has a definite agenda that’s not necessarily supernatural.
-k

Oleron

10th March 2004, 12:15 AM

Just wanted to mention that there is a good article in Jan/Feb 2004 edition of 'Sceptical Inquirer' all about William James and Leonora Piper.

Interesting Ian

10th March 2004, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Um, no, malcolmdl. Why would I? No one here has even read -one- of her complete transcripts. I can't figure out what all these opinions of her work are based on.

Well, I think he became increasingly convinced that there might be something to ADC, the more he investigated Piper and the more he was convinced that, unlike Blavatsky and others he'd exposed, she was not cheating in any way.

Says who?

Um...What fraud is that, Malcolm?

Unlike people here (none of whom have read a transcript--including, and forgive me if I'm wrong, you--Stephen Braude and Alan Gauld have -extensively- studied the research with Piper and found no evidence of fraud whatsoever.

Let's assume that a sitter you have never seen before comes to you, Malcolm, under an assumed name....how would -you- have gotten prior information about her?

No. We have Piper's.
(that was intended as a kind of joke :) Just so you know.).

Seriously, though. Hodgson wasn't the only one who studied her. NO investigator found evidence of fraud, not even once. Piper never put conditions on her seances, or how sitters were selected, that would indicate she was cheating.

There's absolutely no evidence of cheating, so it's kind of amusing (just kind of! ) to see how people would start to insist she must have been....based on, as far as I can tell, absolutely nothing but preconceived ideas!

They come from the a priori conviction that superpsi (or even psi!) cannot possibly exist, and that communication with the deceased cannot possibly take place (because they have ceased to exist!). Therefore necessarily some sort of fraud must have taken place. Any convoluted wild speculation will do if nothing more plausible is in the offering. What they will not do is seriously countenance psi or communication with the dead.

The Mighty Thor

10th March 2004, 05:53 AM

It’s late, some good news is that I got the ok to spend the $78 So I can read further. I basically enjoy history and this was a colorful and interesting time.

Excellent points throughout that post, Kopji. I've only read what I can find online on Mrs Piper and there are many indications that what was going on was a mixture of hot and cold reading. Whether there was deliberate deception and collusion from the outset, I can't say for sure. But there are many pointers in what I've read to suggest an elaborate hoax. It may not have started out as such, but might well have developed as the personalities interacted and became firm friends.

Of course, this was at the height of the spiritualist movement that was spawned by the fraud perpetrated by the Fox sisters (American mediums whose highly publicized—and profitable—séances triggered an enormously popular fad for spiritualism in the mid-19th century), and there seem to have been several personal agendas being fulfilled in the Piper case. Is she the 'Piltdown Man' of parapsychology?

Could someone post a brief resume of what the SI article on Mrs Piper and William James says?

I hope Kopji will keep us up to speed here on his research, although I realise that that is a lot to ask when he had to spend his hard-earned dollars to access the full material.

Certainly, if this is a convincing case for Clancie, I'm surprised she can't see the holes in it even from the highly pro-biased account given by Lodge that is available online.

malc

The Mighty Thor

10th March 2004, 06:19 AM

They come from the a priori conviction that superpsi (or even psi!) cannot possibly exist, and that communication with the deceased cannot possibly take place (because they have ceased to exist!). Therefore necessarily some sort of fraud must have taken place. Any convoluted wild speculation will do if nothing more plausible is in the offering. What they will not do is seriously countenance psi or communication with the dead.

Ian,

We're talking about the Mrs Piper case here, not 'psi' in every possible variant of its purported validity.

There's nothing 'convoluted' or 'wild' in my scenario. The answer as to how a hoax might have been perpetrated is really quite simple, and I'm surprised that you don't see the holes in the case.

Want to have a go at looking at the flipside of the psi explanation? Do a Sherlock Holmes, not a Conan Doyle, on the report by Lodge and alternative (more mundane) explanations might come to you.

The Mrs Piper case being a hoax does not equal 'all psi is bunkum'. You attribute to me a viewpoint that I do not hold. Why?

Clancie

10th March 2004, 06:21 AM

Posted by malcolmdl (bolding added)

I've only read what I can find online on Mrs Piper and there are many indications that what was going on was a mixture of hot and cold reading.
Hi malcolmdl,

I see you again say there are "many indications" of cheating and cold reading. Yet I still haven't seen you detail these numerous examples (I'm especially interested in the "cheating").
(bolding added)

Whether there was deliberate deception and collusion from the outset, I can't say for sure. But there are many pointers in what I've read to suggest an elaborate hoax
Again, this is a serious charge. Would you please enumerate the things that point to "a hoax"?

It's really not enough to just keep claiming "cheating" and "hoax". What exactly -are- all these indications of it that you keep alluding to?

The Mighty Thor

10th March 2004, 06:59 AM

Clancie,

I was wondering if you, or anyone else can see the flaws that I see that point to a hoax just from the Lodge report on Mrs Piper. Kopje and others obviously can see some. Why can't you?

I thought you might try out your skepticism on this particular case that you brought up.

If I give it away, you won't have the satisfaction of developing your own criticism on the case. It's kind of like exposing a conjuring trick. Yet, in this case, there is not one 'technique' but a mixture of them, none involving paranormal explanations, that would explain the phenomena exhibited from what I have read.

Can't you see any problems with the case as reported by Lodge?

I will explain my theory later if I have to.

Oleron

10th March 2004, 07:14 AM

Hi Clancie,

You defend the work of James and Hodgson. Does this mean you consider the Piper case to be a strong (if not the strongest) example of psychic or telepathic abilities?

If you think the case is strong, do you believe it yourself? Or do you consider that there is a better example to discuss?

My opinion on this example is that, because it was documented so long ago, it is difficult to judge either way. Certainly William James was well respected by some, but not others. Hodgson I'm less inclined to trust.

The case, like many of these older cases, comes down to a question of trust. In this case the question is 'Do you trust James' ability to perform an unbiased, carefully observed test?'.

What I do find odd is that old cases like Piper, Helen Duncan etc, are enshrined by believers mainly because they can no longer be tested. This contrasts with their modern equivalents (Van Praagh, Browne) who get a much rougher ride because testing can still be performed and perhaps we are less easily deceived than before.

Clancie

10th March 2004, 07:16 AM

Posted by malcolmdl

I thought you might try out your skepticism on this particular case that you brought up.

If I give it away, you won't have the satisfaction of developing your own criticism on the case.
malcolm,

To be perfectly frank, I find your attitude on this a bit annoying--actually, quite condescending.

You're not my teacher and I'm not your student. The discussion thread is about Mrs. Piper's mediumship. It's not for you to pose as someone with superior intellect who is trying to test (or help me develop) my critical faculties.

If you have a point to make about Piper, you should make it and let it be discussed...critically. If you have nothing to contribute on the topic, that's fine, too.

Interesting Ian

10th March 2004, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by malcolmdl
Clancie,

I was wondering if [b] you, or anyone else can see the flaws that I see that point to a hoax just from the Lodge report on Mrs Piper. Kopje and others obviously can see some. Why can't you?

malcolmdl,

You've completely ignored Clancies questions. Why don't you answer them?? No wonder she is annoyed with you. Here is the pertinent post:

malcolmdl
I've only read what I can find online on Mrs Piper and there are many indications that what was going on was a mixture of hot and cold reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clancie
Hi malcolmdl,

I see you again say there are "many indications" of cheating and cold reading. Yet I still haven't seen you detail these numerous examples (I'm especially interested in the "cheating").

malcolmdl
Whether there was deliberate deception and collusion from the outset, I can't say for sure. But there are many pointers in what I've read to suggest an elaborate hoax.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clancie
Again, this is a serious charge. Would you please enumerate the things that point to "a hoax"?

It's really not enough to just keep claiming "cheating" and "hoax". What exactly -are- all these indications of it that you keep alluding to?

Over to you malcolmdl.

The Mighty Thor

10th March 2004, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

malcolm,

To be perfectly frank, I find your attitude on this a bit annoying--actually, quite condescending.

You're not my teacher and I'm not your student. The discussion thread is about Mrs. Piper's mediumship. It's not for you to pose as someone with superior intellect who is trying to test (or help me develop) my critical faculties.

If you have a point to make about Piper, you should make it and let it be discussed...critically. If you have nothing to contribute on the topic, that's fine, too.

I have not 'posed as someone with superior intellect' at all.

If you don't want to look for alternative explanations that would explain the phenomena as described by Lodge, that's fine.

If you have looked, and found no indications of a hoax, that's fine too.

I'll see what others here think before I post my theory.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could answer one question without attacking me.

Is there anything about the case as presented by Lodge that you find suspicious or indicative of a hoax?

Interesting Ian

10th March 2004, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by malcolmdl

I have not 'posed as someone with superior intellect' at all.

If you don't want to look for alternative explanations that would explain the phenomena as described by Lodge, that's fine.

If you have looked, and found no indications of a hoax, that's fine too.

I'll see what others here think before I post my theory.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could answer one question without attacking me.

Is there anything about the case as presented by Lodge that you find suspicious or indicative of a hoax?

As far as I understand it no-one has ever found such. Certainly from nothing I've ever read although I don't claim to have read a great deal.

CFLarsen

10th March 2004, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You've completely ignored Clancies questions. Why don't you answer them?? No wonder she is annoyed with you.

Actually, Clancie is the one who ignores malcolmdl's points - or rather, she doesn't want to address them, because Clancie thinks he is rude.

Which is a very convenient way of never addressing anything uncomfortable again.

Interesting Ian

10th March 2004, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Actually, Clancie is the one who ignores malcolmdl's points - or rather, she doesn't want to address them, because Clancie thinks he is rude.

Which is a very convenient way of never addressing anything uncomfortable again.

Claus,

What evidence does he have that Piper was a fraud?

Interesting Ian

10th March 2004, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by malcolmdl
[B]This is a very interesting thread.

I'd like to know if Clancie has changed her mind about Mrs Piper being a convincing case.

It is notable that Hodgson, as he became a believer, seems to have lessened any controls rather than strengthening them.

What are your sources?

He comes to view Mrs Piper and her daughters as intimate friends.

Not according to Irwin's "An introduction to psychology". At least it claimed that Hodgson and Piper were never close despite working together for 18 years.

(I wonder if the mother and girls were pretty?)

Nah, not the mother at least.

Not a good idea for the researcher to become intimately involved with the subjects, surely?

Intimate? What evidence do you have to make this assertion??

Can Clancie (or anyone) think of any reasons why Hodgson might have become part of this fraud?

What fraud??

Can she think of any ways Mrs Piper might be getting the information on sitters other than paranormally?

More pertinently can you? Can anyone?

NoZed Avenger

10th March 2004, 09:17 AM

The burden of proof is usually described as the combination of two things:

(1) the burden of production; and
(2) the burden of persuasion.

The second element simply states that the status quo will be accepted unless and until the proponent of any change/policy/idea shows that sufficient evidence supports it. This is the classical "he who asserts must prove" element.

But the first part of the burden also requires a proponent to produce evidence. The proponent of a new or original idea/policy is the one charged with coming forward with evidence.

In this case, "prove someone committed fraud 100 years ago" is not only a pretty unreasonable request from the start, but is also a reversal of this burden.

The problem with Ms. Piper is similar to that encountered by Tony Youens and Stumpy when dealing with the "Jacqui Poole" case, and that one was only 18 years old, as opposed to almost a century. The biggest problems are that the witnesses are dead and there is no way to set up a controlled test anymore.

Gardner wrote about Piper some time ago and gave some information that he considered indicative of fraud -- primarily (IIRC) "fishing" inquiries from the transcripts. He also pointed out some possible avenues of receiving information on the part of Ms. Piper, both through her husband and servants. Likewise, the fact that "unkown" sitters were brought was considerably less impressive when a number of them were prominent in the community and could have easily been recognized (and a thick file could have presumably been collected on such persons from public sources quite easily). Without the source documents, though, I have no way of knowing how sound these criticisms are.

Also, while several investigators are called "skeptical," most people identified as skeptics were only skeptical of the mediumship claims -- their preferred theory was some sort of telepathy. This is not quite the same type of skepticism as most readers might expect.

Given the difficulties in (or impossibility of) making anything resembling a thorough investigation; given the lack of source materials (in my home city, at least); given the time and expense necessary in trying to locate and review such materials; and given the very likely scenario that few would pay attention to -- much less be convinced by -- an analysis done a century (plus) after the fact, I just don't feel too enthused about being given a homework assignment of "proving" fraud that may have occurred 120 years ago.

It is not the burden of anyone to prove Ms. Piper a fraud. If something outside the normal realm of accepted physical laws occurred -- whether PSI or mediumistic -- it is the proponent's burden of proof.

Unless someone makes such a study worth my while -- say paying for a leave of absence so I can travel and spend 6 weeks on the original source documents, I decline.

N/A

PS: Garrette had some crticisms of the Gault book that were referenced here (there is a link to his original post, I think):

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30101&highlight=piper

Interesting Ian

10th March 2004, 09:48 AM

NoZed Avenger

You and others are not required to prove Mrs Piper was a fraud. You just have to give some plausible means whereby Mrs Piper could have obtained the information. My understanding is that cold reading is extremely implausible. So how could Mrs Piper have gotten this information? Do you understand you have to supply some sort of answer here??

CFLarsen

10th March 2004, 09:49 AM

Randi's "An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural" describes Piper this way:

Piper, Leonora
A Boston housewife who said she discovered her power as a spirit medium at age 27, Mrs. Piper told of an Indian spirit guide with the unlikely name of Chlorine who was aided by another guide named Dr. Phinuit, which she pronounced "finny.'' This French doctor knew only a little French and less about medicine.

The mediumship of Mrs. Piper, which involved dramatic teeth-gnashing, moaning and thrashing about, was enthusiastically supported by the famous psychologist/philosopher William James. The fact that she regularly spoke with Longfellow and Bach (the latter spoke no German in Summerland) provided James with excellent methods for testing the medium, but such tests were not done.

Mrs. Piper began featuring automatic writing, and then in 1911 abandoned her séances altogether and concentrated solely on the automatic writing.

She was investigated by Richard Hodgson, a member of the American Society for Psychical Research, for eighteen years. He became convinced of her legitimacy, and he was very pleased when she told him that he would have a long life, would soon marry and would have two children. Hodgson died a few months later, unmarried and childless.
Source (http://jref.sawco.com/FMPro?-db=ency.fm&-format=list.htm&-error=list.htm&-op=BW&l=p&-find=Search&-script=c)

Summerland:
The expression used by spirit medium "The Poughkeepsie Seer'' Andrew Jackson Davis to denote the place where one "goes'' at death. The term was free of religious requirements, thus satisfying those who wished to embrace spiritualism without those entanglements.
Source (http://jref.sawco.com/FMPro?-db=ency.fm&-format=list.htm&-error=list.htm&Serial=600&Where=Serial&-find=Search&-script=c)

So, not only is Dr. Phinuit not very good at French and anatomy, Bach doesn't even speak German.

Interesting Ian

10th March 2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Randi's "An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural" describes Piper this way:

So, not only is Dr. Phinuit not very good at French and anatomy, Bach doesn't even speak German.

Claus, what relevancy has this got?? No-one is claiming that Dr. Phinuit was a real person. You've seemed to have forgotten the 2 theories Mike D mentioned. Let's stay focused shall we? Here is what Mike D said before:

There seem to be two ways that have been proposed to deal with this situation (once again, assuming for the moment that fraud has been ruled out, and assuming that sufficient specific and accurate information about a deceased person has appeared during a seance). One involves the notion of "super psi," which obviously postulates that some sort of psi faculty can exist, but does not necessarily postulate survival of death or the existence of real spirits. In this case, the whole drama of the medium's control relaying information from a spirit is seen as an ultimately artificial dramatization of information about the deceased that the medium has picked up telepathically from perhaps the minds of the sitters, and then dramatized in such a way during the seance to more or less convincingly seem as though the actual spirit of the deceased is communicating, when in fact, no such thing is happening at all, and the deceased may no longer even exist.

The other way of dealing with the problem has been called the theory of "overshadowing." This theory is definitely a survivalist theory and says that, while the whole trance drama involving a "control," (and put on by the mediums's subconscious mind) is artificial, somewhere behind it all is the real spirit of the deceased, and that the medium is picking up some information and thoughts of the deceased from the actual spirit. In this case, the medium's subconscious mind would be somewhat like a the mind of a talented author who is writing a play about a famous person. The author might interview the person and pick up many facts about that person as well as subtle aspects of that individual's personality. The resulting play would be to a great extent the creative work of the author but perhaps still manage to incorporate actual lines spoken during the interview with the famous person as well as conveying a sense of the famous person's personality. But the play as well could also include lines and action that would not quite ring true to those who knew the famous person.

CFLarsen

10th March 2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Claus, what relevancy has this got?? No-one is claiming that Dr. Phinuit was a real person. You've seemed to have forgotten the 2 theories Mike D mentioned. Let's stay focused shall we?

Yeah, let's. You see, we are trying to find out whether Piper was a real medium or not, right?

What have we found out so far? Many things that point to the answer that she was not. Not necessarily a fraud, but certainly nothing that even indicates that she was a real medium.

The more we dig, the less evidence of mediumship we find. No wonder believers are not very keen on doing some real research...

Interesting Ian

10th March 2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yeah, let's. You see, we are trying to find out whether Piper was a real medium or not, right?

What have we found out so far? Many things that point to the answer that she was not. Not necessarily a fraud, but certainly nothing that even indicates that she was a real medium.

The more we dig, the less evidence of mediumship we find. No wonder believers are not very keen on doing some real research...

So you favor the superpsi hypothesis?

CFLarsen

10th March 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So you favor the superpsi hypothesis?

I first have to know what it is.

What does the definition of the superpsi hypothesis state?

How do we test the hypothesis?

Is it falsifiable?

Interesting Ian

10th March 2004, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I first have to know what it is.

What does the definition of the superpsi hypothesis state?

How do we test the hypothesis?

Is it falsifiable?

Claus,

Read this (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/braude/superpsi.htm)

Darat

10th March 2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Claus,

Read this (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/braude/superpsi.htm)

He strongly argues against your view of "psi" doesn't he?

(Edited because I really did really.)

TLN

10th March 2004, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
If you have a point to make about Piper, you should make it and let it be discussed...critically. If you have nothing to contribute on the topic, that's fine, too.

There's nothing to contribute here because there's nothing here at all; no testing protocol to scrutinize and no science to be found.

Clancie, you can pile up all the Mrs. Piper materials until you reached the moon, it would still amount to nothing more than a lot of stories. Stories are not evidence.

CFLarsen

10th March 2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Read this (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/braude/superpsi.htm)

"Super-psi" means that psi "can occur at any level of magnitude or sophistication"? Is that correct?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He strongly argues against your view of "psi" doesn't he?

Not really. He argues that:

"probably the best evidence for psi of any kind is the evidence of physical mediumship"

We are talking ectoplasm and electronic voice boxes here? Pluhease....

CFLarsen

10th March 2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by TLN

There's nothing to contribute here because there's nothing here at all; no testing protocol to scrutinize and no science to be found.

Clancie, you can pile up all the Mrs. Piper materials until you reached the moon, it would still amount to nothing more than a lot of stories. Stories are not evidence.

But where is the "strict" protocol described?? There has got to be one, because we hear about it.

Or, is that a story as well? Hmmm........

magicflute

10th March 2004, 11:38 AM

This is SO typical!!! Belivers will throw old dead medium and psychics at you that you can not longer test, for which there is sketchy evidence at best if any, for which the methodology for the original tests can no longer be examined or verified and they challenge you to disprove it. A total waste of time!! Look, if this type of phenomena is supposed to exist, then we can postulate that it should exist now and that we should be able to find it and prove it on a person alive today. Someone we can put to a test under strict protocols agreed by a cohesive group of qualified investigators. This is what needs to be done, otherwise it's just all wheel spinning and a total waste of time!

TLN

10th March 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But where is the "strict" protocol described?? There has got to be one, because we hear about it.

Or, is that a story as well? Hmmm........

Sorry, I can't get a straight answer to that question.

CFLarsen

10th March 2004, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by TLN
Sorry, I can't get a straight answer to that question.

But that is the key argument that Piper was a real medium: She was tested under a "strict protocol".

But we can't see it. We simply have to take the word of the researchers, very sympathetic to mediumship.

Sorry, I ain't buying.

NoZed Avenger

10th March 2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
NoZed Avenger

You and others are not required to prove Mrs Piper was a fraud. You just have to give some plausible means whereby Mrs Piper could have obtained the information.

What information, exactly?

My understanding is that cold reading is extremely implausible.

How did you make that determination? While we're here, I may as well ask what you mean by "implausible" -- do you mean you have ruled it out, or is it still a possible explanation for some/all of the information you speak of, above?

So how could Mrs Piper have gotten this information? Do you understand you have to supply some sort of answer here??

We obviously disagree on who has the burden to show that Ms. Piper had extraordinary powers. There are near-countless methods of obtaining information about persons, but since all of them have been dead quite some time, it is rather difficult to do a thorough investigation. Gardner has suggested some problems, but, again, I (1) have not had the opportunity to look at the source documents, (2) do not know if they could answer these types of questions, anyway, and (3) have no real desire to do voluminous homework on a 120 year old subject that no one will pay attention to, anyway.

As pointed out above.

N/A

Interesting Ian

10th March 2004, 02:14 PM

To NoZed Avenger,

One cannot prove that some anomalous cognition is going on. This is the same for any experiment purporting to show anomalous mental phenomena. All one can do is to ensure as far as is humanly possible that no cheating is taking place. Such measures were implemented with Mrs Piper, and no evidence, so far as I am aware, has ever surfaced to suggest she was cheating in some manner.

So to go back to what I said. I said:

II

So how could Mrs Piper have gotten this information? Do you understand you have to supply some sort of answer here??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NoZed Avenger

We obviously disagree on who has the burden to show that Ms. Piper had extraordinary powers.

The evidence is there. If you are interested go and read it. There's nothing else to be said until skeptics suggest some way she might have cheated.

There are near-countless methods of obtaining information about persons, but since all of them have been dead quite some time, it is rather difficult to do a thorough investigation. Gardner has suggested some problems, but, again, I (1) have not had the opportunity to look at the source documents, (2) do not know if they could answer these types of questions, anyway, and (3) have no real desire to do voluminous homework on a 120 year old subject that no one will pay attention to, anyway.

Then_what_are_you_doing_in_this_thread??

NoZed Avenger

10th March 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
To NoZed Avenger,

One cannot prove that some anomalous cognition is going on. This is the same for any experiment purporting to show anomalous mental phenomena. All one can do is to ensure as far as is humanly possible that no cheating is taking place. Such measures were implemented with Mrs Piper, and no evidence, so far as I am aware, has ever surfaced to suggest she was cheating in some manner.

"Such measures" ?

What measures?

And again - what information, precisely?

So to go back to what I said. I said:

The evidence is there. If you are interested go and read it. There's nothing else to be said until skeptics suggest some way she might have cheated.

As I said -- at least twice now -- the "evidence" (if by evidence you mean the actual transcripts or specific descriptions of controls) is -not- available to me.

Then_what_are_you_doing_in_this_thread??

Wasting my time, apparently.

N/A

The Mighty Thor

11th March 2004, 11:22 PM

I assumed that Ian and Clancie had read

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/lodge/survival/contents.htm

It is part of the thread.

The chapters on Mrs Piper move between reports by William James, Lodge's own reports, and his reports on Hodgson's reports, which make it just about as confusing as this sentence. It gets worse when 'Hodgson' dies and becomes a 'control'.

I see now that it was Sir Oliver Lodge who was intimately involved with the Pipers:

"Coming to ordinary social details: it is not an impertinence, but is justified by the special circumstances of the case, to state that the family is an admirable one, and that we regard them as genuine friends."

Mrs Piper seems to have had a disarming effect on skeptiks. She seems to have 'worn them down' with her charm. The Pipers were invited to do sittings at Christmas, for example -- usually a very personal time for families.

Sir Oliver Lodge believed in telepathy, and that is what he seems to be arguing for in the Mrs Piper case. It seems that his wife believed herself to be a psychic medium. He sought out, and believed that he had received messages from his dead son Raymond.

From what I can make out Hodgson devoted nineteen years of his life to investigating Mrs Piper. he may not have become 'intimate friends with the family', but given the circumstances, I doubt this, but will concede to Ian's information.

Perhaps Ian could tell us what his source says that indicates that Piper and Hodgson did not become friends.

Neither James nor Sir Oliver Lodge were skeptics by today's standards. Hodgson certainly seems to have started out with a healthy skeptical approach, but became 'worn down' by Mrs Piper. These three investigators all had vested interests in the SPR.

As has been pointed out, Mrs Piper was like a franchise of the Society. I hate spiders, but I reckon if I studied them closely for 20 years, I'd get to like them -- or at least respect them.
:)

I say that the controls put in place were lessened because I assume that Hodgson did not have PI's on her and her husband's tails for the full period of investigation. Neither do I believe her mail would be checked all the time. What happened was that Hodgson 'ruled out' certain possibilities, and stopped checking for these as time went on.

Any competent magician will tell you that there is nothing more convincing to a subject as when the subject knows one technique for a trick and the magician then uses another technique to receive the desired effect. Magicians fool other magicians all the time. You can't just rule things out and then never check them again. For example:

"The introduction of a stranger now makes things slow and laborious, and is on the whole discouraged; for although the old characteristics continue to some extent, the tests now given are mainly of a different kind. The early procedure was useful at the beginning, and it continued useful for a good many years till a case for investigation was firmly established; but it must have seemed tedious to prolong that method further, so the group of controls associated with Rector assured Dr. Hodgson that they would take the trance in hand and develop it on better and higher lines."

What Mrs Piper is 'producing' can come from so many sources that if she is 'mixing techniques' it would be beyond the resources of an investigator to check for all of them, all of the time in the circumstances under which Mrs Piper was being tested.

The investigators believe that they are in control of the sittings and say so. Then we have:

"The following illustrates the care taken of the physical conditions and the way they are spoken of it is an extract from a sitting held by Mr. Dorr at Boston in 1906
(Rector interrupting a "Hodgson" communication.) Friend, you will have to change the conditions a moment.
[At the beginning of the sitting only one of the two windows in the room was open a very little way. A few moments previous to this time H. J. Jr. noticing that the room was a little close had opened the other window, and G. B. D. had nearly closed it again.]
G. B. D. What is wrong with the conditions? Do you want more air or less?
Well, there will have to be a change in the surroundings, there will have to be more strength, what is it, air, yes, air. And a good deal more just now. Hodgson takes a good deal of strength when he comes, but he is all right, he understands the methods of operation very well (The window was now opened wide). That is better. Now the light begins to get clear. All right, friend."

Clearly, the psychic is in control here, not the investigators.

I would be suspicious as to what was going on a that window.

Was the mail always checked -- not just Mrs Piper's {important this}

Where were the daughters during the sittings? (Supposedly at their needlework -- but were they under surveillance all the time?)

There are so many questions I would need answered and so many alternative theories about how this all could have been done that I am surprised that Clancie and Ian can't think of any other ways that Mrs Piper could have come by the information other than by supernatural means.

It was a spectacular piece of cheek on Mrs Piper's part to recruit Hodgson as a 'spirit control'.

Had I been his spirit, the first thing I would have asked is:

"Why the &^*% did you tell me I'd live a long happy life and have children. Why didn't you tell me I was going to die so soon you *darned* fraud. Oh, but you can't be if I'm talking to you now -- oh, this is confusing -- where is Myers? Groan."

The Mighty Thor

11th March 2004, 11:51 PM

Here's my theory:

Mrs Piper's spirit controls were actually time travellers. They could look at Clancie and Ian's computer screens to see what we are typing about them. Similarly, they found out all the information that they conveyed to Mrs Piper from Cosmic Google, the search engine for the Cosmic Internet and the IDW (Inter Dimensional Web). This stuff will all be invented in the future, but Phinuit et al. have access to it, them being time travellers.

The reason Mrs Piper's messages were often garbled and incoherent was because of imperfections in the Universal and Extradimensional Babelfish which is as erroneous in translation as the beast's initial concept in our time. viz.

Piper, Leonore Evelina Simonds

Important American medium.

Mrs. Piper probably is at most examined ASW medium in the history of the Parapsychologie - nevertheless you were never proven a fraud.

The work extended over one period of nearly 3 decades and fills in the Proceedings of the S.P.R. (Society OF Psychical Research) over 3000 sides.

Their most important examiners were bar-saved, Hodgson, Hyslop, James, Lodge, Murphy, Myers, Newbold and Sidgwick.

Even if Mrs. Piper were the only medium in the world, then that would be sufficient, in order to justify the Kryptaesthesie scientifically.

The first paranormale experience is to have had it with 8 years (to log out an aunt), it followed first only few experiences. With 22 she married and with 25 used substantial Trancen.

Until 1911 Mrs. Piper showed day for day probably telepathisch received information.

1885 participated William James in a meeting and were, although first sceptically, soon of the extraordinary one of the achievements convinces.

1887 assigned the S. P. R. (Society OF Psychical Research) Hodgson the investigation of the phenomena. Hodgson dedicated itself the following 19 years of its life to this task.

2 years long Mrs. Piper was checked to a not identifiable French physician, whom replaced 1892 George Pelham by the Trancepersoenlichkeit Dr. Phinuit, which formed from there on exclusive control.

Hodgson determined its identity with George Pelham, a deceased lawyer and writer, whom he had introduced still during lifetimes under an alias into the meetings.

Also George Pelham mediated, like before Phinuit, messages of the deceased, above all in writing, in addition, verbally and sometimes even in both forms at the same time.

Hodgson let medium of detectives be supervise, in order to guarantee that Mrs. Piper could not procure itself information, which could then have been spent as paranormale achievement.

It considered itself later the thesis of the Telepathie disproved and well-known for spiritistischen explanation. Probably under the personal impression that a girl, whom he had wanted to marry years ago in Australia and from which he 15 years long nothing had more heard, to it in Boston by Mrs. Piper their death communicated. Hodgson verified this case.

All in all Mrs. Piper produced innumerable highly detailed statements about hundreds of goal persons with the help of several controls.

As a rule it seems to have concerned Anwesenheitstelepathie.

In Hypnose Mrs. Piper could not show paranormalen experiences, but only in Trance, into which she purged spontaneously. Afterwards it did not have memory of the Vorgefallene.

PK phenomena arose with Mrs. Piper not, do not refrain one from an ability examined not more near, which was attributed it: Flowers the smell to take and them more rapidly wither to leave.

Makes sense to me

:)

Oleron

12th March 2004, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by malcolmdl

I say that the controls put in place were lessened because I assume that Hodgson did not have PI's on her and her husband's tails for the full period of investigation. Neither do I believe her mail would be checked all the time. What happened was that Hodgson 'ruled out' certain possibilities, and stopped checking for these as time went on.

Any competent magician will tell you that there is nothing more convincing to a subject as when the subject knows one technique for a trick and the magician then uses another technique to receive the desired effect. Magicians fool other magicians all the time. You can't just rule things out and then never check them again.

The investigators believe that they are in control of the sittings and say so. Then we have:

"The following illustrates the care taken of the physical conditions and the way they are spoken of it is an extract from a sitting held by Mr. Dorr at Boston in 1906
(Rector interrupting a "Hodgson" communication.) Friend, you will have to change the conditions a moment.
[At the beginning of the sitting only one of the two windows in the room was open a very little way. A few moments previous to this time H. J. Jr. noticing that the room was a little close had opened the other window, and G. B. D. had nearly closed it again.]
G. B. D. What is wrong with the conditions? Do you want more air or less?
Well, there will have to be a change in the surroundings, there will have to be more strength, what is it, air, yes, air. And a good deal more just now. Hodgson takes a good deal of strength when he comes, but he is all right, he understands the methods of operation very well (The window was now opened wide). That is better. Now the light begins to get clear. All right, friend."

Clearly, the psychic is in control here, not the investigators.

I would be suspicious as to what was going on a that window.

Was the mail always checked -- not just Mrs Piper's {important this}

Where were the daughters during the sittings? (Supposedly at their needlework -- but were they under surveillance all the time?)

There are so many questions I would need answered and so many alternative theories about how this all could have been done that I am surprised that Clancie and Ian can't think of any other ways that Mrs Piper could have come by the information other than by supernatural means.

It was a spectacular piece of cheek on Mrs Piper's part to recruit Hodgson as a 'spirit control'.

Had I been his spirit, the first thing I would have asked is:

"Why the &^*% did you tell me I'd live a long happy life and have children. Why didn't you tell me I was going to die so soon you *darned* fraud. Oh, but you can't be if I'm talking to you now -- oh, this is confusing -- where is Myers? Groan."

Couldn't agree more. Is this not what Randi has been saying for 50 years?
If it weren't for the introduction of a trained magician/conjuror in to the events, how many tricksters would still be getting away with it today? Psi Baba, Geller, Lulova - the list goes on. Each one of these chancers had trained, skeptical scientists eating out of their hands until a 'pesky magician' rained on their parade.

It makes me shudder to think how many charlatans got past science with laughable ease before the likes of Houdini and Randi came along.

Is Piper one of these? We cannot say for certain. We can only suggest that, given the nature of the experiments, there are several ways in which COULD have. Malcolmdl has suggested a mixture of techniques - cold and hot reading, misdirection and (when she got a bit chummier with Hodgson) blatant manipulation.

I'm not saying she did any of those things - I'm just saying that anyone who thinks she couldn't have done them, hasn't read enough of the Randi commentary's dealing with the applications for the prize.
Ian, surely you must agree that the circumstances under which Piper was tested were hardly 'lockdown' by todays standards?

The Mighty Thor

12th March 2004, 01:55 AM

Hodgson must have lost his reason, been influenced by the Society, or was completely in the control of the 'quiet and innocent' Mrs Piper when:

"so the group of controls associated with Rector assured Dr. Hodgson that they would take the trance in hand and develop it on better and higher lines."

He is now treating the 'controls' like they were real and should have a say in the testing procedures. Sheesh! The lunatics are in charge of the asylum!

The Mighty Thor

12th March 2004, 02:13 AM

Does anyone know what Hodgson died from?

The Mighty Thor

12th March 2004, 03:57 AM

Just by chance, when looking for stuff on Mrs Piper, I came across this:

HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ILLINOIS AND
HISTORY OF SANGAMON COUNTY Volume II - Biographical
Chicago: Munsell Publishing Company, Publishers 1912

at:

http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilsangam/bio-1912-idx.htm

If this kind of work was published elsewhere, what a great source of information to add to the psychic's arsenal for information fishing.

The Mighty Thor

12th March 2004, 04:27 AM

Possibility of servants' gossip being one source for Mrs Piper's information:

from Skeptical Inquirer, Jan-Feb, 2004, by Herman H. Spitz

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2843/1_28/111897969/p1/article.jhtml

The White Crow

Any discussion of James's spiritualistic bent must begin with Mrs. Piper. James (1890) wrote that he first met her in the Autumn of 1885, and Mrs. Piper's description of how they met is particularly illuminating. "My maid of all work told a friend who was a servant in the household of Professor William James, of Harvard, that I went into 'queer sleeps,' in which I said many 'strange things.' Professor James recognized that I was what is called a psychic, and took steps to make my acquaintance" (Piper 1902, 143). If this was true there would have been an obvious conduit from the James household to Mrs. Piper, and her trance state revelations about the James family, which so impressed James, would have had a more mundane source than the spirit world. Mrs. Piper's daughter, Alta Piper, told a somewhat different story. Her grandparents had a maid whose sister worked in a Boston home frequently visited by James's mother-in-law, Mrs. Gibbens (Alta Piper spelled it Gibbins). Hearing, through this channel, marvelous tales about Mrs. Piper, Mrs. Gibbens requested and received a sitting that so impressed her that she arranged a sitting for her daughter, James's wife, "the results of which appeared equally, if not more, surprising than her own" (A. Piper 1929, 22).

James's (1890) version of how he met Mrs. Piper generally supports her daughter's description, although he made no mention of the role played by the housekeepers. When he was told of Mrs. Piper's powers he went with his wife, "to get a direct personal impression" (652). Whatever the specific connection between the servants, "It is thus possible that Mrs. Piper's knowledge of the James family was acquired from the gossip of servants and that the whole mystery rests on the failure of the people upstairs to realize that servants [downstairs] also have ears" (Burkhardt and Bowers 1986, 397).

The Mighty Thor

12th March 2004, 04:29 AM

PS

My wife would like a 'maid of all work'.

:)

The Mighty Thor

12th March 2004, 07:54 AM

Interesting Ian said

NoZed Avenger

You and others are not required to prove Mrs Piper was a fraud. You just have to give some plausible means whereby Mrs Piper could have obtained the information. My understanding is that cold reading is extremely implausible. So how could Mrs Piper have gotten this information? Do you understand you have to supply some sort of answer here??

Plausible means?

Gossip -- husband, daughters, servants, friends in the 'psychic circles' of the times, overheard conversations of servants who were 'invisible' to the upper/middle classes of this time. (People discuss the strangest, most personal things in front of bartenders even nowadays -- I can attest to this)

Paid Informants. (Mrs Piper earned a living at this game -- plenty to go around, I think) Servants could easily be employed for "a small consideration, Ma'am".

Newspapers -- "hatches, matches and dispatchies". Local newspapers also report on things like deaths from accidents.

Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

Local Biographical Encyclopedias that contained a wealth of information.

The "Who's Who", if these existed then. Or maybe the "Woos Woo":)

Compromised post -- getting a hold of mail send to and by folk like James, Lodge, and Hodgson before they got it, opening and resealing, then having it delivered as unopened. 'Reading through the envelope' is easy, too. Here is a method that would 'reveal' some of the supposedly annonymous sitters. I assume most were contacted and made appointments by letter. There was usually only one or two new sitters per day. So, if Mrs Piper knows that Sir Oliver Lodge has made an appointment for Mr X on Thursday, 14 Dec. 1894, she knows who Mr X is and has time to research. The postboy or even postmaster could be involved. Remember that in the past telephone exchange girls were often guilty of 'listening in'.

Overhearing via the plumbing, by holding a glass to wall or floor or by 'cowans and eavesdroppers' outside windows -- not as silly as at first these methods might seem.

The 'psychic blue book system'.

Her own Private Investigators.

Sneaking about in the homes she was in, by her or a confederate. Even locked doors and cabinets can be opened, after all.

Collusion with investigators, witting or unwitting. They, too, made money from the Piper 'franchise.' People were paid, books were published, lectures given, etc. Hodgson was sent to America -- not a bad little number for him IMO.

Mrs Piper did fish for info -- all the investigators admit this. So, a mixture of cold/hot reading gives varied performances which is just what we would expect. She is 'fluent' when she has the info she needs, and fishes when stumped.

A mixture of all or some of the above.

I'm sure there are other explanations that don't involve the paranormal.

On the pre-reading of the mail, the following is most suspicious:

As an instance of reading a letter, which had indeed just passed through my mind, but which was not read in any normal manner by the medium, I take the following case.
(A chain was handed to Phinuit by me, the package having been delivered by hand to me late the previous evening. I had just opened the package, glanced at the contents, and hastily read a letter inside, then wrapped all up again and stored them. The chain had been sent by Mrs. John Watson from Sefton Drive; it had belonged to "Ian Maclaren's" father.)
"This belongs to an old gentlemen that passed out of the body - a nice old man. I see something funny here, something the matter with heart, paralytic something. Give me the wrappers, all of them. - [i.e., The paper it came in; a letter among them. Medium held them to top of her head, gradually flicking away the blank ones. She did not inspect them. She was all the while holding with her other hand another stranger, a Mr. Lund, who knew nothing whatever about the letter or the chain.] "Who's dear Lodge? Who's Poole, Toodle, Poodle? Whatever does that mean?"
O. J. L.: "I haven't the least idea."
"Is there J. N. W. here? Poole. Then there's Sefton. S-e-f-t-o-n, Pool, hair. Yours truly, J. N. W. That's it; I send hair. Poole J. N. W. Do you understand that?
O. J. L.: "No, only partially."
[Note by O. J. L - I found afterwards that the letter began "Dear Dr. Lodge," contained the words "Sefton Drive," and "Cook" so written as to look like Poole. It also said "I send you some hair." and finished - yours sincerely J. B. W."; the "B" being not unlike an "N." The name of the sender was not mentioned in the letter, but at a subsequent sitting it was correctly stated by Phinuit in connexion with the chain.] WHY WAS THE SENDER ONLY NAMED AT A SUBSEQUENT SITTING -- AFTER MRS PIPER RESEARCHED WHO J.B.W ???
This reading of letters in an abnormal way is very curious, and is a very old type of phenomenon. Kant and Hegel were both familiar with it: only it was then called "reading with the pit of the stomach." Now it seems usually done with the top of the head.
I had a few other cases-less distinct than the above - and I again refer here to the little experiment made by Mrs. Verrall as reported on page 98, as well as to Page 104.

So, to quote Ian and Clancie -- "over to you!"

CFLarsen

12th March 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by malcolmdl
Does anyone know what Hodgson died from?

I hope it wasn't anything serious! :)

The Mighty Thor

12th March 2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I hope it wasn't anything serious! :)

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

It seems he died 'after sport' -- probably had a bad heart that was undetected by Phinuit.

Or, maybe there was a little something in his tea or coffee that made him loose his reason and finally killed him.

Pure speculation, of course:)

magicflute

12th March 2004, 08:52 AM

One old trick used by mediums to read what was inside an envelope without opening it was to keep a rag or wad soaked in a volatile substance which could be surrepticiously applied to the envelope rendering it temporarily translucent for a minute or so allowing you to make out some of the writing inside.
[Note by O. J. L - I found afterwards that the letter began "Dear Dr. Lodge," contained the words "Sefton Drive," and "Cook" so written as to look like Poole. It also said "I send you some hair." and finished - yours sincerely J. B. W."; the "B" being not unlike an "N." The name of the sender was not mentioned in the letter, but at a subsequent sitting it was correctly stated by Phinuit in connexion with the chain.] WHY WAS THE SENDER ONLY NAMED AT A SUBSEQUENT SITTING -- AFTER MRS PIPER RESEARCHED WHO J.B.W ???
The above is very telling as the way most letters are folded you would be most likely able to see the very begining as well as the very end, since the folds would make it difficult to see any part of the body of the letter.

The Mighty Thor

12th March 2004, 09:09 AM

magicflute

12th March 2004, 10:21 AM

One of the reasons I am up on the methods medium/psychic use is because being a hispanic and that for cultural and traditional reasons, hispanics have been prey for the 'brujos' and their kin for a long time, I felt I needed to get involved. I have seen too many people victimized by these vermin who take all from those who have little to spare. In my 54 years and I have fought them whenever possible in my own way thru education and demonstrations whenever and where ever the opportunity presents itself. One thing I have realized is that there is really very little new to these tricksters. Most tricks are just repeats or variations of old tricks. If you familiarize yourself with the techniques used, by reading and learning from those who came before; you will be more likely to detect their deceit.

Clancie

12th March 2004, 11:43 AM

Posted by magicflute

One old trick used by mediums to read what was inside an envelope without opening it was to keep a rag or wad soaked in a volatile substance which could be surrepticiously applied to the envelope rendering it temporarily translucent for a minute or so allowing you to make out some of the writing inside.
That seems like a lot of work. A much easier way (and harder to notice) is the old trick of being out of sync with the envelopes you're opening. In other words, the first envelope you open has the information that you are going to pretend came from the second envelope and so on.
Posted by magicflute

I have seen too many people victimized by these vermin who take all from those who have little to spare. In my 54 years and I have fought them whenever possible in my own way thru education and demonstrations whenever and where ever the opportunity presents itself.

Well, I commend you for fighting fraud where you find it and for educating people how to detect it for themselves.

I just disagree if you feel that, because we know that -some- mediums are fraudulent, therefore we know that -all- of them are.

CFLarsen

12th March 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

A much easier way (and harder to notice) is the old trick of being out of sync with the envelopes you're opening. In other words, the first envelope you open has the information that you are going to pretend came from the second envelope and so on.

A completely different trick, irrelevant to the scenario in question.

magicflute

12th March 2004, 01:39 PM

Clancie, I can see why you are so easily deceived. You look but do not see. You read, but you do not understand. The reason for offering that particular solution is because it best fits the actions described. There was only ONE envelop, and what was divined was at the begining and the end of the letter. This fits the pattern of using a volatile substance. It is not alot of trouble particularly by a woman at that time that were fond of carrying kerchief in their hands at all times, this would make things easy to conceal. The are many ways of reading a single unopen envelope, just get a hold of some of the books I recommended in previous posts and you will be better informed.
I just disagree if you feel that, because we know that -some- mediums are fraudulent, therefore we know that -all- of them are.
As soon as we find one that can be proven as genuine, I will recommend her to everyone.

Interesting Ian

12th March 2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

That seems like a lot of work. A much easier way (and harder to notice) is the old trick of being out of sync with the envelopes you're opening. In other words, the first envelope you open has the information that you are going to pretend came from the second envelope and so on.
[/B]

This sounds like a card trick I used to do from about the age of 9. Surreptitiously look at the bottom card of the deck. Let's say it was the 5 of diamonds. Spread the deck out on the table, shuffling the cards around, but always taking note of where the 5 of diamonds is. Ask someone what card they think is the 5 of diamonds, and ask them to pick it up, but without them looking at it and pass it over to you, and you look at it.

Say they picked the 7 of spades. Then ask them to pick what they think is the 7 of spades. Say they pick the king of clubs (but they don't look at it and pass straight to you). Then you declare that now you're going to have a go and try and guess which card is the king of clubs, and pick up the 5 of diamonds! The result is you have all 3 cards in your hand! :D

The Mighty Thor

12th March 2004, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by magicflute
Clancie, I can see why you are so easily deceived. You look but do not see. You read, but you do not understand. The reason for offering that particular solution is because it best fits the actions described. There was only ONE envelop, and what was divined was at the begining and the end of the letter. This fits the pattern of using a volatile substance. It is not alot of trouble particularly by a woman at that time that were fond of carrying kerchief in their hands at all times, this would make things easy to conceal. The are many ways of reading a single unopen envelope, just get a hold of some of the books I recommended in previous posts and you will be better informed.

As soon as we find one that can be proven as genuine, I will recommend her to everyone.

A very perceptive reply, magicflute.

Mrs Piper had folk bamboozled. Confusion and noise often achieved this at séances. She seems to have used more subtle forms of misdirection. The window that she insisted was kept open for 'strength' (air) may well have been to supply bright light to see through paper. Why does she need to get hold of the paper and hold it to her head? 'Glimpesing' would also produce the results she gave from this letter reading.

The investigators are stupid enough to be misdirected by 'the controls'. They start to believe in Phinuit and telepathy, and therefore just about anything Mrs Piper describes (even if they know the info IS known to her) becomes revelation because it is coming 'from the control'.

In this light, the Sutton reading (the little girl Kackie I think it was) is a particularly cynical and cruel deception. I'm coming to dislike Mrs Piper the more I read about her. There is nothing funny or quaint about this. It is a sick deception of necromancy. And I'm becoming more annoyed with Clancie's supercilious tone earlier in the thread. An accusation of fraud is a serious matter, she says. Does she think Mrs Piper is going to 'punish' me from beyond the grave? I already wear a tinfoil hat at night in bed -- so no need for me to worry about a psychic attack.

Are the 'brujos' the women who use the 'blood in the egg yolk' trick to get credulous folk to hand over lots of money? If so, I've heard of them. I hope you continue to expose this stuff wherever you find it, my friend. It is fraud, pure and simple, and these people prey on the most vulnerable, grieving members of society.

The Mighty Thor

12th March 2004, 07:58 PM

Claus,

I know Mr Randi does not like conjuring tricks to be exposed here. Many people make a living this way as entertainers without claiming any paranormal powers. (BTW I just found out how to do the card trick he demonstrated at the end of the Ultimate Psychic Challenge -- it is ingenious!)

But *some* methods used by stage mentalists are also used by psychic mediums. Should these be exposed?

I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on this.

The Mighty Thor

12th March 2004, 09:08 PM

Clancie said: I just disagree if you feel that, because we know that -some- mediums are fraudulent, therefore we know that -all- of them are.

But, Clancie, I thought you were claiming that Mrs Piper was 'the one white crow'? You seemed to want to defend her rather vehemently. Have you found your one white crow, or are you still looking? That is really the substance of TLN's question that started the other thread that was split to here.

Have you changed your mind about Mrs Piper?

The Mighty Thor

12th March 2004, 10:18 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Kopji

Before he joined the psychic investigations he was a follower of and taught the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. Spencer was an advocate of Social Darwinism, and actual coiner of the term 'survival of the fittest'. This is a fairly stark philosophy.
IMHO Hodgson was quite capable of promoting a hoax just for a private joke on humanity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clancie said: Wow, Kopji, With all due respect I don't see how being Spencerian and believing in Social Darwinism would make one likely to perpetrate a hoax and turn your whole career around to become someone knowingly promoting fraud. (Didn't he still like Spencer's ideas at the time he exposed Mme. Blavatsky as a fraud? Sorry, but this idea doesn't make any sense to me at all).

Clancie, with all due respect, you really just don't 'get it', do you?

Can't you see any connection here?

Garrette

12th March 2004, 11:26 PM

malcolmdl:

Plausible means?

Gossip -- husband, daughters, servants, friends in the 'psychic circles' of the times, overheard conversations of servants who were 'invisible' to the upper/middle classes of this time. (People discuss the strangest, most personal things in front of bartenders even nowadays -- I can attest to this)

Paid Informants. (Mrs Piper earned a living at this game -- plenty to go around, I think) Servants could easily be employed for "a small consideration, Ma'am".

Newspapers -- "hatches, matches and dispatchies". Local newspapers also report on things like deaths from accidents.

Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

Local Biographical Encyclopedias that contained a wealth of information.

The "Who's Who", if these existed then. Or maybe the "Woos Woo"

Compromised post -- getting a hold of mail send to and by folk like James, Lodge, and Hodgson before they got it, opening and resealing, then having it delivered as unopened. 'Reading through the envelope' is easy, too. Here is a method that would 'reveal' some of the supposedly annonymous sitters. I assume most were contacted and made appointments by letter. There was usually only one or two new sitters per day. So, if Mrs Piper knows that Sir Oliver Lodge has made an appointment for Mr X on Thursday, 14 Dec. 1894, she knows who Mr X is and has time to research. The postboy or even postmaster could be involved. Remember that in the past telephone exchange girls were often guilty of 'listening in'.

Overhearing via the plumbing, by holding a glass to wall or floor or by 'cowans and eavesdroppers' outside windows -- not as silly as at first these methods might seem.

The 'psychic blue book system'.

Her own Private Investigators.

Sneaking about in the homes she was in, by her or a confederate. Even locked doors and cabinets can be opened, after all.

Collusion with investigators, witting or unwitting. They, too, made money from the Piper 'franchise.' People were paid, books were published, lectures given, etc. Hodgson was sent to America -- not a bad little number for him IMO.

Mrs Piper did fish for info -- all the investigators admit this. So, a mixture of cold/hot reading gives varied performances which is just what we would expect. She is 'fluent' when she has the info she needs, and fishes when stumped.

A mixture of all or some of the above.

I'm sure there are other explanations that don't involve the paranormal.

On the pre-reading of the mail, the following is most suspicious:

Excellent, malcolm. And it demonstrates why I insist that we stop using the false dichotomy of "actual mediumship or cold reading."

There are many ways to cheat. Cold reading is one of them. Malcolm has listed some great examples of others.

CFLarsen

13th March 2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by malcolmdl
Claus,

I know Mr Randi does not like conjuring tricks to be exposed here. Many people make a living this way as entertainers without claiming any paranormal powers. (BTW I just found out how to do the card trick he demonstrated at the end of the Ultimate Psychic Challenge -- it is ingenious!)

But *some* methods used by stage mentalists are also used by psychic mediums. Should these be exposed?

I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on this.

And I will reply to you in the upcoming newsletter from SkepticReport. It is a subject worthy of one. :)

(Sign up at www.skepticreport.com)

The Mighty Thor

13th March 2004, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Garrette

Excellent, malcolm. And it demonstrates why I insist that we stop using the false dichotomy of "actual mediumship or cold reading."

There are many ways to cheat. Cold reading is one of them. Malcolm has listed some great examples of others.

Thanks Garrette.

I'm beginning to think that the Spiritist Movement really was wittingly manipulated by some of the major players. There is just no way that *some* who were involved could not have known the cons and deceptions. Others were simply 'hoodwinked'.

It just goes to show that the 'need to believe' will over-ride common sense, even when the original perps (in this case, the Fox sisters) own up to fraud.

In many ways, I hate to try disabuse people of their erroneous beliefs, but I know that a lot of damage can be done by these charlatans. People have given their life savings to phoney psychics and healers, usually at a time when they are at their most vulnerable.

What is more amazing is that people like John Edward and Colin Fry make a fortune out of this and seem to put a lot less time and effort into 'the effect' than the likes of Mrs Piper. She must have been very charming and disarming in her attitude, and although she was selling lies, I don't necessarily think she would have thought she was 'doing harm'. She seems to have looked upon it as 'thirty years service to science.'

It is notable, too, that 'Summerland' seems to have been a very white, upper-class, Anglo-Saxon kind of place -- like a posh spa for the dead who 'deserved' special treatment.

I suppose, after the Great War, and the horrors of the trenches, it was some comfort to those who lost loved ones. But if the human race keeps on thinking there are otherworldly rewards in whatever Paradise, martyrdom cults could ultimately destroy us all. Suicidal folk with nukes are a frightening prospect, and it all stems from this propensity toward magical thinking and lack of respect for this life.

The Mighty Thor

13th March 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

And I will reply to you in the upcoming newsletter from SkepticReport. It is a subject worthy of one. :)

(Sign up at www.skepticreport.com)

I look forward to reading it and to hearing what others think on the matter, too. Most of the techniques have been reported in books, but, as you will be aware, you have to know where to look.

magicflute

13th March 2004, 10:12 AM

Malcolmdl,
The response to your question about the "brujo" is that the term can be translated as "witch" or "warlock". It refers to anyone using witchcraft or black magic to do good or bad. You have "Santeria", "Palo Mayombe" , "Candomble", "Vudu" at al. The latest epidemic is from scum that you often see on TV commercial in the Latin stations offering their services. These bloodsuckers attribute ANYTHING wrong in your life as a 'maleficio" or spell. They offer to help you get rid of the spell for a fee or course. The big problem is once they get their hooks on you they wont let go. There are some that still do the blood in the egg trick. The last 'case' of this type I helped on was a variation. Human hair in the egg. I am planning expose some of these frauds publicly as soon as my schedule permits since this is bound to be a long term project. I would like to use hidden audio and video. Perhaps I will talk to Randi to get some advice, since he has had vast experience with public exposure. Until now I have been involved on a one to one basis mostly. Maybe I can get one of the Latin stations to do a piece on the results, but I am not too hopeful. Since I often see Walter Mercado spewing his brand of horoscope nonsense on their station, and even during news broadcasts!!! It's a very uphill battle.

The Mighty Thor

15th March 2004, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by magicflute
Malcolmdl,
The response to your question about the "brujo" is that the term can be translated as "witch" or "warlock". It refers to anyone using witchcraft or black magic to do good or bad. You have "Santeria", "Palo Mayombe" , "Candomble", "Vudu" at al. The latest epidemic is from scum that you often see on TV commercial in the Latin stations offering their services. These bloodsuckers attribute ANYTHING wrong in your life as a 'maleficio" or spell. They offer to help you get rid of the spell for a fee or course. The big problem is once they get their hooks on you they wont let go. There are some that still do the blood in the egg trick. The last 'case' of this type I helped on was a variation. Human hair in the egg. I am planning expose some of these frauds publicly as soon as my schedule permits since this is bound to be a long term project. I would like to use hidden audio and video. Perhaps I will talk to Randi to get some advice, since he has had vast experience with public exposure. Until now I have been involved on a one to one basis mostly. Maybe I can get one of the Latin stations to do a piece on the results, but I am not too hopeful. Since I often see Walter Mercado spewing his brand of horoscope nonsense on their station, and even during news broadcasts!!! It's a very uphill battle.

All I can say is: "Watch your back!"