Open Minded Testing Organisations For Paranormal Phenomena

[jambo372]

Does anyone here know of any unbiased committees who investigate paranormal phenomena such as psychic ability.
Brain washing organisations which are closed minded and cynical who despise claimants such as JREF and CSICOP don't count, neither do gullible organisations.

[WhiteLion]

Well Jambo I'm not sure about rude vs gullible theme but if you want to take a closer look at other sites doing paranormal research still different from the formentioned I can post a few links perhaps. The degree of serious investigation presented below is something I can not comment on.

http://www.ispr.net/
http://www.parcs.org/ (Paranormal Research Center of Sweden)
It's sadly all in swedish if I recall correctly so, not likely you will get much from that site.
http://www.rockymountainparanormal.com/
www.prsne.com
http://www.paranormal-research.org/
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/3384/
http://www.paranormalresearchonline.com/fpr_what.html
http://www.iopr.org.uk/

[Sharon]

Hi Jambo

Sorry I have no links.

Jambo, can I ask why you want info?

Is it because your having doubts?

Or are you just looking for stuff to back up in your mind what you believe? pseudo-science?

Sharon

[vbloke]

I would say that it would be impossible to find a non-biased organisation that investigates paranormal events.
Either an organisation believes in paranormal things or it does not.
In either case, their results are going to reflect this bias.

[jambo372]

Originally posted by Sharon
Hi Jambo

Sorry I have no links.

Jambo, can I ask why you want info?

Is it because your having doubts?

Or are you just looking for stuff to back up in your mind what you believe? pseudo-science?

Sharon

I'm not having doubts or trying to find stuff to back up my beliefs.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Didn't you already ask this question?

Organizations which supposedly are unbiased about the paranormal use and/or publish such uncontrolled or protocol-weak research that only the gullible take them seriously.

All other research is shows negative or inconclusive results.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by jambo372
Does anyone here know of any unbiased committees who investigate paranormal phenomena such as psychic ability.
Brain washing organisations which are closed minded and cynical who despise claimants such as JREF and CSICOP don't count, neither do gullible organisations.

Jambo, why don't you just say what you mean? You are looking for paranormal investigators that can provide credible evidence for the existence of paranormal events and abilities. They don't exist. There have been many scientific studies that appear to show evidence of the paranormal. They have never been successfully replicated by independant investigators.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by jambo372
Does anyone here know of any unbiased committees who investigate paranormal phenomena such as psychic ability.
Brain washing organisations which are closed minded and cynical who despise claimants such as JREF and CSICOP don't count, neither do gullible organisations.

I have the distinct feeling that "closed minded and cynical" means that they don't agree with your closed minded ways. Also, from what I've seen, the annoyance we express about claimants comes from the obvious fraud and exploitation many of them perform, not their claims. Many others are merely self-deluded, and should, at most, be pitied. I give my endorsement to the JREF, because it administers tests that filter out bias, unlike many other paranormal-studying institutions, who fail to filter out trickery, get false positive results, and then refuse to tighten controls when obvious experimental flaws are shown.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by vbloke
I would say that it would be impossible to find a non-biased organisation that investigates paranormal events.
Either an organisation believes in paranormal things or it does not.
In either case, their results are going to reflect this bias.

Nope. If the testing is done correctly, bias doesn't enter into it. It doesn't matter if you believe in the paranormal or not so long as the investigation is double-blinded and meets scientific testing criteria.

[jambo372]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
Jambo, why don't you just say what you mean? You are looking for paranormal investigators that can provide credible evidence for the existence of paranormal events and abilities. They don't exist. There have been many scientific studies that appear to show evidence of the paranormal. They have never been successfully replicated by independant investigators.

Don't try to put words in my mouth, I know of several investigators who've had official studies published proving PSI. I'm looking for institutes who actually test currently.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by jambo372
Don't try to put words in my mouth, I know of several investigators who've had official studies published proving PSI. I'm looking for institutes who actually test currently.

Show us these studies.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by jambo372
I know of several investigators who've had official studies published proving PSI.
References?

[vbloke]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Nope. If the testing is done correctly, bias doesn't enter into it. It doesn't matter if you believe in the paranormal or not so long as the investigation is double-blinded and meets scientific testing criteria.

indeed. I should have stated that pro-paranormal investigators often ignore standard testing procedures and publish results that cannot be repeated by others or draw conculsions that are shaky at best.

Originally posted by jambo372
I know of several investigators who've had official studies published proving PSI.

and once again, we have a statement with no evidence to back it up.

[gnome]

Originally posted by jambo372
Does anyone here know of any unbiased committees who investigate paranormal phenomena such as psychic ability.
Brain washing organisations which are closed minded and cynical who despise claimants such as JREF and CSICOP don't count, neither do gullible organisations.

I think if you examine the record, you will find that JREF reps actually enjoy working with claimants that know and follow the challenge rules, communicate reliably, and provide unambiguous claims.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by jambo372
Does anyone here know of any unbiased committees who investigate paranormal phenomena such as psychic ability.
Brain washing organisations which are closed minded and cynical who despise claimants such as JREF and CSICOP don't count, neither do gullible organisations.

Thing is, you have to be gullible to believe that the paranormal is worth investigating. I have a lot of trouble with the idea that the neutral or default position is that people may or may not be able to talk to dead people or may or may not be able to move objects with brain waves or may or may not be able to foretell the future. In fact, holding those positions represents a positive assertion that phenomena that operate contrary to the laws of nature and all of our collective human experience are a possibility. This is not a reasonble assertion.

I would also add that no particular paranormal phenomena has anymore to recommend it for study than any other and there are, conceivable, an infinite number of imagined paranormal possibilities, how does one go about determining which paranormal phenomena are worth investigating? That is the trouble with believing things for which there is no genuine evidence - there are an infinite number of them, making the choice of which one to believe entirely arbitrary.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by jambo372
Don't try to put words in my mouth, I know of several investigators who've had official studies published proving PSI. I'm looking for institutes who actually test currently.


I'm not putting the words in your mouth, Jambo. You are entirely transparent.

I did not claim that there were no published studies "proving" "PSI". Just that independent investigators had been unable to replicate the results of those studies, thereby rendering them suspect.

[Ashles]

Dr A gets a new avatar. Jambo gets a new Avatar...

Dr A if you have created 'jambo' there will officially be no good left in the world anymore.

[Chimera]

Ashles wrote:
Dr A gets a new avatar. Jambo gets a new Avatar...
Dr A if you have created 'jambo' there will officially be no good left in the world anymore.


Mayday changed "her" avatar too. Hmmm...

[El Greco]

If there were such animals as "paranormal phenomena" then even "close minded" organizations couldn't disprove them. The quest for "open minded" organizations is a quest for shabby procedures and biased "investigators".

[jambo372]

Originally posted by Ashles
Dr A gets a new avatar. Jambo gets a new Avatar...

Dr A if you have created 'jambo' there will officially be no good left in the world anymore.

You must be joking. As if some sceptic could create a work of art as good as I.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by billydkid
Thing is, you have to be gullible to believe that the paranormal is worth investigating.

THAT right there is a dangerous attitude to have. Should we investigate the same damned claim over and over, if it has been shown to be without merit? No. But if new evidence arises, we should be willing to look into it.

Of course, most of the time new "evidence" is a rehashing of old themes or misunderstanding of scientific principles. These can be quickly detected and explained, but we shouldn't just ignore them.

Dogma and forbidden subjects are the domain of Mother Church, not big papa Science :)

[Ashles]

Originally posted by jambo372
You must be joking. As if some sceptic could create a work of art as good as I.
True - 'Jambo372' is the David Brent of the paranormal world.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by jambo372
I know of several investigators who've had official studies published proving PSI.Again, do you have the references for these? If they're official publications they should be reasonably easy to get hold of.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Mojo
Again, do you have the references for these? If they're official publications they should be reasonably easy to get hold of.

Yeah, we should maintain a hold on that. One of these days, we might actually get a believer to reference one of these amazing studies. This ties in with one of my alternate hypotheses about the lack of evidence for the paranormal: The believers are covering it up, because if skeptics saw the evidence, they'd be convinced, and there'd be no one that believers can turn into imaginary Wickerman skeptics to make fun of.

[jambo372]

Originally posted by Mojo
Again, do you have the references for these? If they're official publications they should be reasonably easy to get hold of.

I've given many already, several times over.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by jambo372
I've given many already, several times over.


And most paranormal claims have been refuted many times as well. It's not an efficient world. Humor us...

[drkitten]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
THAT right there is a dangerous attitude to have. Should we investigate the same damned claim over and over, if it has been shown to be without merit? No. But if new evidence arises, we should be willing to look into it.

Nice in theory, but impractical in practice. There are too many other things that are worth investigating for which much better evidence is available.

Think of it this way. Over my fifty year research career, I will be able to put in about 100,000 hours of active research. The produce of that hundred thousand hours will be required to feed and clothe myself and my family, provide for my retirement, secure my place in the annals of history,.... and, incidentally, make the world a better place in a small way.

How many of those irreplaceable hundred thousand hours do you want me to spend investigating things that I fully expect to be useless, flawed, and a complete waste of my time?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by jambo372
I've given many already, several times over. Any chance of giving them again? If you can't find them or can't be bothered to post them again, could you at least give us the names of the "investigators who've had official studies published proving PSI" of which you claim knowlege. Then we could try to track them down for ourselves.

Edited to add: Or perhaps you could provide links to the threads where you originally posted them. Assuming that you did, of course.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
THAT right there is a dangerous attitude to have. Should we investigate the same damned claim over and over, if it has been shown to be without merit? No. But if new evidence arises, we should be willing to look into it.

Of course, most of the time new "evidence" is a rehashing of old themes or misunderstanding of scientific principles. These can be quickly detected and explained, but we shouldn't just ignore them.

Dogma and forbidden subjects are the domain of Mother Church, not big papa Science :)

But did you digest the rest of my post? In as much as there is no less genuine evidence to support the claim that there are red-assed, three legged moon monkeys living on the dark side of that celestial body than there is to support any other claim of the paranormal then why not be open minded about investigating that possibility? That is my issue with being open to "investigating" the paranormal - where do you stop. Clearly, there is no end to possible, hypothetical paranormal claims and in as much as none has any more obvious merit than another how does one determine which claim is worth investigating? Do we devote the time and energy and resources needed to "investigate" every single claim made by every single nitwit? Does the fact that a fair number of nitwits seem to have settled on the claim of being able to talk to dead people make that particular unsupportable claim worth investigating? At what point does actually being rational factor into this whole business?

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by billydkid
But did you digest the rest of my post?

I wasn't trying to give you a hard time, and I'm with you on how much time can be wasted investigating every damned silly claim. It's just dangerous to start considering certain subjects off limits.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by jambo372
Don't try to put words in my mouth, I know of several investigators who've had official studies published proving PSI. I'm looking for institutes who actually test currently.

Yes and they must all be biased if you're looking for unbiased organizations.

[jambo372]

Originally posted by Mojo
Any chance of giving them again? If you can't find them or can't be bothered to post them again, could you at least give us the names of the "investigators who've had official studies published proving PSI" of which you claim knowlege. Then we could try to track them down for ourselves.

Edited to add: Or perhaps you could provide links to the threads where you originally posted them. Assuming that you did, of course.

It's irrelevant but I'll give you a few details anyway ... for the last time.

Helen Duncan materialised a deceased magician by the stage name of "The Great Lafayette" in a magician's club full of experts on fraudulent mediumship, none of them could work out how she did it and believed her mediumship to be genuine. In tests with a medium named Rita Goold the spirit of Helen Duncan has materialised and spoken to her daughter Gena.

Nina Kulagina demonstrated her various psychic talents including healing, medical vision and most famously psychokinesis to no less than 40 scientists in several repeated tests over a period of a decade or so. She was recruited by the soviet government to see if she could use her talents to help Nikita Khruschev. Scientists who tested her include LL Vasiliev, G Sergeyev, E Naumov, G Pratt, Ye Terletsky and Mr Blazek.

Julius Krmessky has shown to several scientists psychokinesis similar to that of Kulagina.

Rudi Schneider and DD Home demonstrated powerful physical mediumship to several scientists.

The Fox Sisters "founders of modern spiritualism" demonstrated their mediumship to several scientists. Sceptics say that they cracked their toes to produce spirit rappings and that Margaretta Fox confessed to this herself. What sceptics don't tell is the second half of the tale :

Margaretta admitted that her confession was a lie devised by herself and her youngest sister Kate to get revenge on their older sister Leah. Margaretta and Kate devised the spirit communication methods themselves, it was their older sister Leah however who took most of the credit and gained most respect as a medium because of her resources, money and older age, she then disowned her 2 youngest alcoholic sisters who'd brought her fame. Margaretta and Kate became jealous and this is why Margaretta made up a confession which she later retracted.

[Starrman]

Helen Duncan materialised a deceased magician by the stage name of "The Great Lafayette" in a magician's club full of experts on fraudulent mediumship, none of them could work out how she did it and believed her mediumship to be genuine. In tests with a medium named Rita Goold the spirit of Helen Duncan has materialised and spoken to her daughter Gena.

You do realize that this is a story - not an 'official investigation'. All links I can find are stories as well. As usual they grandstand about her being proven over and over, without any kind of real results or documentation of testing.

I see a lot of Sceptics must have winced at the daily reporting of case after case where 'dead' relatives had materialised and given absolute proof of their continued existence .

But no actual listing of what that proof was beyond witnesses playing the "couldn't have known" card. All I have to say to that is, if at least one person knows, then it is possible for someone else to know. Just because you can't think of how doesn't mean it was magic.

I love this one "One Kathleen McNeill, wife of a Glaswegian forgemaster, told how she has attended such a seance at which her sister appeared. Her sister had died some a few hours previously, after an operation, and news of her death could not have been known."

Well, the doctor knew, the sister knew, any nurses that were at the hospital would have knows, other family members could have known - but wait, there is NO WAY she could know - right?

No official studies, just a parade of stories.

Jambo - why don't you think magicians are really magical?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by jambo372
It's irrelevant but I'll give you a few details anyway ... for the last time.
Yes you have provided those examples before and they have all been debunked, or it has been explained how they likely did it.

Another thread with Jambo's ludicrous claims (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870743460)

I really can't be bothered to look for the rest.

[Azrael 5]

Will you ever give us a "real medium" who is alive,jambo?
On the subject of dera Helen Duncan,read this In the July 14, 1931, Morning Post, a long article was published on her exposure there and Harry Price branded her in a statement "as one of the cleverest frauds in the history of Spiritualism." A portion of her teleplasm was found to be composed of woodpulp and white of egg. Photographs taken during the séance disclosed India rubber gloves and rough portraits wrapped in cheesecloth. An X-ray examination revealed that Mrs. Duncan was possessed of a remarkable faculty of regurgitation and she merely swallowed the necessary paraphernalia before the séance.

From herehttp://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/duncan.htm

She was left with[regurgitated]egg on her face! :D

On the subject od D D Home and his amazing levitation out of windows,do remember jambo:no-one actually saw him do this.Merely leave one room and appear in the next- in the dark! No-one watching was allowed to move.Real test conditions,them.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by jambo372
It's irrelevant but I'll give you a few details anyway ... for the last time.The usual suspects again, I see. What about the "official studies ... proving PSI" which you claim have been published? You don't seem to mention them.

Edited to add: And by the way, if you say you know of reports "proving PSI," it is hardly irrelevant to ask for references. If they are irrelevant, why did you bring them up in the first place?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by jambo372


The Fox Sisters "founders of modern spiritualism" demonstrated their mediumship to several scientists. Sceptics say that they cracked their toes to produce spirit rappings and that Margaretta Fox confessed to this herself. What sceptics don't tell is the second half of the tale :

Margaretta admitted that her confession was a lie devised by herself and her youngest sister Kate to get revenge on their older sister Leah. Margaretta and Kate devised the spirit communication methods themselves, it was their older sister Leah however who took most of the credit and gained most respect as a medium because of her resources, money and older age, she then disowned her 2 youngest alcoholic sisters who'd brought her fame. Margaretta and Kate became jealous and this is why Margaretta made up a confession which she later retracted.

Margaretta admitted she wasn't cracking her toes. She was cracking her butt. The toes were a lie devised with her sister Kate because they were jealous that Leah could crack her @ss better than her sisters. Leah, who showed herself to be the superior @ss cracker, disowned her sisters, because they were failures in the peculiar family treat that so many Foxs' inherited: that of being able to control and manipulate the muscles in her hind end to produce a degree and range of popping, hissing, and cracking sounds from her hind end. In fact, in ancient times, people begged for prophecies from the Oracle of the Bottom. Royals and Aristicrats delighted in filling a theater just to hear the musical wind of the accomplished Foxs' performances.
Margaretta and Kate became jealous and this is why Margaretta made the confession with the sole intent to undermine the family talent that was not simply Leah's alone.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Suezoled
who showed herself to be the superior @ss cracker

Ya know... you just don't see this phrase often enough in the world...

[John the Skeptic]

How do you do “open-minded testing�? :D

The whole point of a rigorous test is to remove potential biases and so test only that which is under consideration. You don’t set out to prove or disprove something; you test it for validity.

Strictly controlled, well designed tests actually benefit the claimant: if their ability is real then they will pass the test and the result will be very hard for skeptics to argue against.

Of course, strict tests show up, or have done so far, that psi abilities do not exist. That’s not because testers are “close-minded�, it’s more likely to be because psi abilities don’t exist.

When a “believer� comes out with the “open-minded� argument, all they are usually saying is: be credulous. (e.g. You must read this book on Astrology with an open mind…)

Well, there’s a lot of credulous testing goes on where the investigators “open-mindedly� set out to prove that which they believe. The problem is: it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and the results are therefore meaningless.

Testing has to be done properly otherwise it is a waste of time.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Nina Kulagina demonstrated her various psychic talents including healing, medical vision and most famously psychokinesis to no less than 40 scientists in several repeated tests over a period of a decade or so. She was recruited by the soviet government to see if she could use her talents to help Nikita Khruschev. Scientists who tested her include LL Vasiliev, G Sergeyev, E Naumov, G Pratt, Ye Terletsky and Mr Blazek. Goodbye, Nina Kulagina. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51099)

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Goodbye, Nina Kulagina. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51099)
I'd forgotten about that thread. It's a good one with both Interesting Ian and Jambo on top form.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
The Fox Sisters "founders of modern spiritualism" demonstrated their mediumship to several scientists. Sceptics say that they cracked their toes to produce spirit rappings and that Margaretta Fox confessed to this herself. What sceptics don't tell is the second half of the tale :

Margaretta admitted that her confession was a lie devised by herself and her youngest sister Kate to get revenge on their older sister Leah. Margaretta and Kate devised the spirit communication methods themselves, it was their older sister Leah however who took most of the credit and gained most respect as a medium because of her resources, money and older age, she then disowned her 2 youngest alcoholic sisters who'd brought her fame. Margaretta and Kate became jealous and this is why Margaretta made up a confession which she later retracted. A little more detail:Nevertheless, in 1888, Margaret Fox made a public statement denouncing the spiritualists, claiming that she had made the noises by cracking her toes.

On October 21, 1888, Margaret appeared before an audience of 2000 to demonstrate how she had fraudulently produced the spirit raps. In her stocking feet, on a small pine platform six inches above the floor, Margaret produced raps audible throughout the theater by cracking her toe-joints! Doctors from the audience came on stage to verify the source of the sound.

Margaret confessed that she and her sister used this and other methods to produce the raps. Sometimes they used an apple on a string, bouncing it on the floor out of sight behind the furniture. Her confession showed that the entire spiritualism movement was founded on fraudulent events. Kate, who was with her at the time remained silent, as if in agreement. The following year, however, Margaret recanted, saying she had fallen under the influence of people who were inimical to spiritualism and who had offered her money.... and who taught her how to make rapping noises with her toe joints loud enough to be audible throughout a theatre seating two thousand people, a talent she never previously knew she had. Those evil, evil skeptics --- they'll do anything to conceal The Truth, won't they?

[jambo372]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
A little more detail:... and who taught her how to make rapping noises with her toe joints loud enough to be audible throughout a theatre seating two thousand people, a talent she never previously knew she had. Those evil, evil skeptics --- they'll do anything to conceal The Truth, won't they?

She could always rap her toes, this has nothing to do with it. The only thing sceptics have against the sisters is a faked confession of how she created bogus spirit rappings which was later retracted. Also even if she did this in a seance it wouldn't explain the various other phenomena.

[Dr Adequate]

Sarcasm's wasted on you, isn't it?

Yes, I know she could always rap her toes. Since her childhood, in fact.

Dolt.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by jambo372
She could always rap her toes, this has nothing to do with it. The only thing sceptics have against the sisters is a faked confession of how she created bogus spirit rappings which was later retracted. Also even if she did this in a seance it wouldn't explain the various other phenomena.
Phenomena such as.......? Obviously you have factual accounts of this phenomena of course.
Dont you?

[Dr Adequate]

Well, Azrael, since you ask, let me remind you of my post:Margaret confessed that she and her sister used this and other methods to produce the raps. Sometimes they used an apple on a string, bouncing it on the floor out of sight behind the furniture. Her confession showed that the entire spiritualism movement was founded on fraudulent events.Those other phenomena.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Well, Azrael, since you ask, let me remind you of my post:Those other phenomena.

Cheers Dr A..an apple bobbing on a string,lol.

Wheres the laughing dog gif?? Imagine it here:



;)

[Mojo]

Originally posted by jambo372
It's irrelevant but I'll give you a few details anyway ... for the last time.

Helen Duncan materialised a deceased magician by the stage name of "The Great Lafayette" in a magician's club full of experts on fraudulent mediumship, none of them could work out how she did it and believed her mediumship to be genuine. In tests with a medium named Rita Goold the spirit of Helen Duncan has materialised and spoken to her daughter Gena.

Nina Kulagina demonstrated her various psychic talents including healing, medical vision and most famously psychokinesis to no less than 40 scientists in several repeated tests over a period of a decade or so. She was recruited by the soviet government to see if she could use her talents to help Nikita Khruschev. Scientists who tested her include LL Vasiliev, G Sergeyev, E Naumov, G Pratt, Ye Terletsky and Mr Blazek.

Julius Krmessky has shown to several scientists psychokinesis similar to that of Kulagina.

Rudi Schneider and DD Home demonstrated powerful physical mediumship to several scientists.

The Fox Sisters "founders of modern spiritualism" demonstrated their mediumship to several scientists. Sceptics say that they cracked their toes to produce spirit rappings and that Margaretta Fox confessed to this herself. What sceptics don't tell is the second half of the tale :

Margaretta admitted that her confession was a lie devised by herself and her youngest sister Kate to get revenge on their older sister Leah. Margaretta and Kate devised the spirit communication methods themselves, it was their older sister Leah however who took most of the credit and gained most respect as a medium because of her resources, money and older age, she then disowned her 2 youngest alcoholic sisters who'd brought her fame. Margaretta and Kate became jealous and this is why Margaretta made up a confession which she later retracted. Come on, Jambo, where are the "official studies" you claim have been published? There's no mention of them here: just a few tall stories (with no mention of the researchers beyond the phrase "several scientists") and a claim that the Russian Government investigated someone's powers to see if they could be used in espionage. Governments are kind of notorious for not publishing any information about their possible espionage techniques.

[Throg]

Originally posted by jambo372
Does anyone here know of any unbiased committees who investigate paranormal phenomena such as psychic ability.
Brain washing organisations which are closed minded and cynical who despise claimants such as JREF and CSICOP don't count, neither do gullible organisations.

May I suggest that what is important is not whether the organisations are biased (i.e. have an opinion one way or the other - who doesn't?) but the soundness of their investigative methods. That someone disagrees with me is not nearly so important as why.

The only thing sceptics have against the sisters is a faked confession of how she created bogus spirit rappings which was later retracted

That's a pretty big strike against the sisters. If they publicly lied once about how their results were obtained how can we ever trust what they say again? How do we even know that the original confession was the lie rather than the retraction?

[Open Mind]

Although I don't have any fixed opinion as to whether Helen Duncan had any genuine ability or was fraudulent , I wish to comment on some misleading debunking quoted in this topic ……. It all revolves rather much around a publicist called ‘Harry Price’

Originally posted by Starrman
You do realize that this is a story - not an 'official investigation'. All links I can find are stories as well.


To be fair, it was more than a ‘story’, nor is it so easily dismissed as such. Magician William Goldston wrote the article defending Helen Duncan himself. …… Goldston's words are

‘........as far as I was concerned, purely in the nature of a test séance. I had enlisted with me as co-examiners Henry Rigoletto, Dr. A. E. Neale, and Dr. O. H. Bowen. All three are magicians of the widest experience.......’

So if Duncan was fraudulent, this unsophisticated woman tricked 4 accomplished magicians? (Goldston wrote many books on magic, founded Magicians Circle along with Houdini)
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/experiments/materialisation/duncan.htm

It is also important to point out, that magician Will Goldston seems to have written the article in defense of Helen Duncan in response to the allegation made by amateur magician Harry Price investigation claiming she was ’ ......one of the cleverest frauds in the history of Spiritualism.......’ .

Goldston seems very aware of Price’s accusation made about one year earlier, when writing this. ....

' ....... Mrs. Duncan is said to possess a remarkable power of regurgitation; before a sitting she swallows many yards of tightly packed and specially prepared cheese cloth - and rubber gloves. (Note: Harry Price’s accusation) All this material she regurgitates from her stomach during a séance, persuading it, in some manner to simulate human shape. That, with further elaboration, constitutes the persecuting statement. ........

So Goldston statement above is disputing Price’s accusation .... he continues .......

Godlston says ' Now, there is not, so far as I am aware - and I am a magician of lifelong experience - any system of trickery which can achieve the astounding results which I witnessed that evening with Mrs. Duncan.
Nor am I aware of any system of ventriloquism or voice control which can so perfectly simulate the voices of eight different beings. After the sitting Mrs. Duncan repaired in my company to an adjoining room. There, with me, she drank two cups of coffee and ate two tea cakes.



Someone else quoted ……..


’ In the July 14, 1931, Morning Post, a long article was published on her exposure there and Harry Price branded her in a statement "as one of the cleverest frauds in the history of Spiritualism." A portion of her teleplasm was found to be composed of woodpulp and white of egg. Photographs taken during the séance disclosed India rubber gloves and rough portraits wrapped in cheesecloth. An X-ray examination revealed that Mrs. Duncan was possessed of a remarkable faculty of regurgitation and she merely swallowed the necessary paraphernalia before the séance.’



This sounds very conclusive .... but it is also inaccurate …… ’ An X-ray examination revealed that Mrs. Duncan was possessed of a remarkable faculty of regurgitation and she merely swallowed the necessary paraphernalia before the séance.’ .. Price admitted elsewhere this examination had failed to disclose anything, it was his theory, they didn't actually find anything in Duncan’s stomach during examinations. (Another trial was claimed where Duncan swallowed blue dye pills, didn't confirm Price's claim)

There is a problem too with skeptics quoting Harry Price as a trustworthy source for evidence of fraud. This is the same Harry Price who was accused of faking the ghosts of Borley Rectory for his publicity (poltergeist was throwing pebbles, Price had pebbles in his pocket), he also promoted a talking mongoose :D So why are skeptics quoting his opinion as trustworthy just because it suits their paradigm?

Several sceptics had problems with Harry Price, also the American Society of Psychical Research, didn’t even publish Prices conclusion on Duncan. Probably because they didn't trust Price. (Price was accused in a handkerchief incidence of trying to make psychic Rudi Schneider look fraudulent).

Duncan was arrested and prosecuted for fraud in Edinburgh in early 1933. One of the witnesses was assisted by Harry Price to give testimony

Duncan is arrested for fraud and jailed for fraud in 1940s. Police fail to capture evidence. At the trial over 40 witnesses give witnesses accounts of materializing dead people, relatives etc. and claim Duncan is genuine. Duncan is refused right to perform materialization or demonstration for jury. Harry Price’s early investigation/claim is used as evidence.

Duncan séance is raided again in 1950s, medium suffers injuries and dies weeks later. Again nothing found by police raid. This woman must have been a very fast swallower :D (If Price's claim was the right explanmation?)

So what is the best evidence against Duncan? Probably the photographs, ectoplasm photographs do not look convincing to me. But who took Duncan’s? Was it publicist Harry Price? :eek: I could be wrong but it seems the source may be from Harry Price’s book written against Duncan? (Note one photograph has Duncan wearing a ring, Duncan and other materialization mediums were not supposed to wear metal objects, removing them before seance .. why has she got one on in photo? Was Duncan talked into a fake publicity photograph?) Note: Publicist Harry Price was accused by witness of faking a poltergeist/brick incident at Borley Rectory.

(Another claim against Duncan involved piece of cloth captured from a Duncan seance in 1939 ...... however it is filed under 'allegedly' from Duncan seance.)

Does this prove Helen Duncan was genuine? Of course not... and the witnesses are too long gone to defend their claims ...... but it might be better if skeptics didn't automatically trust untrustworthy(?) sources just to debunk information .... if you trust publicist Harry Price, are you going to trust his opinion on the ghosts of Borley Rectory being genuine too? ;)

[Zep]

Helen Duncan in action. This is the "proof" she supplied of her ability to materialise spirits in seances. Note the doorway jamb just behind the "spirit figure", where it is hardly possible that a wire to hold up the dummy could be put through. :rolleyes:

Jambo, if you think this is in any way a "real" spirit materialisation by her then you need to up your meds. Seriously.

http://www.forteantimes.com/gallery/images/madseance.jpg

[Open Mind]

That is the photograph I was referring to, who took this photograph? Publicist Harry Price? Is the original source from Price's book on her? (I need to track down that book someday)

This photograph shows Duncan wearing a ring on her finger. If one does research into materialization mediums, Duncan and others didn't wear metal rings during materialization seances .... they claimed it caused burns .... photographs were supposed to cause burns, touching the mediums could cause burns .... the cabinet is missing ......in this photograph all the normal criteria is changed? Any chance this is publicity photograph she was talked into by someone who was promoting mediums? Price?
Or did she really do this alone? She pulled it out of her stomach and hung it up and no one noticed? I'd really like to know who took this photograph? In my opinion it might solve a puzzle.

Would this thing have fooled 4 magicians? Does this match any of the 40+ witness accounts at her trial ..... I think not. Also if this is a fake, how come they faked it so badly?

If this is genuine paranormal..... then it looks like the paranormal is trying to make it look fraudulent to outside observers :D ..... The paranormal makes the paranormal look fraudulent? Wait a minute! :eek: isn't that close to what 'The Trickster and the Paranormal' by magician George Hansen is heading ... the paranormal is often the trickster .. .. irrational but real .... or in the famous words of Sir William Crookes ‘ I didn’t say it was possible, I said it happened’ :) I don't think Mr Hansen would think this photo was genuine , but his book will challenge both skeptics and believers core beliefs ..... worth a read.