Victor Zammit attends a David Thompson seance

[Mike D.]

The first link is to Zammit's account of the seance, and the second is to a critique of Zammit's account by novelist Michael Prescott.


http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/davidthompson.html

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/

[Ashles]

Well firstly Michael Prescott says this:
Now, I think paranormal phenomena - including materializations - are sometimes genuine. But materialization seances are an area that has always been rife with fraud.
It's a bit hard to know how to take this guy.

Yes he knows that this area is 'rife with fraud' yet for some reason he thinks that sometimes it's real? Why?
It reminds me of the whole "Well sure Uri bent the spoon with his hands that time, but maybe he did it with his mind another time".


Also I don't know why but his next article kind of annoyed me:
"
From Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com/): a photo of actual honest-to-God vultures roosting near the space shuttle.

I wouldn't go up in that thing for a million bucks. "

I was at the Space Centre 2 weeks ago and, er, vultures are all over the place there.
They live there Michael. Why are vultures so scary to him?
Is the implication that if a vulture lands on something then anyone who gets in it will die and they will eat them?
It's just weird.

And I personally would pay to go in the space shuttle.
I met astronaut John Blaha while I was there and had a totally superb day.

In fact it struck me while I was there that we all know the names of pointless celebrities, footballers, baseball stars, Big Brother contestants etc. but how many of us could name Space Shuttle commanders?
These are people who really deserve respect. Massively talented, educated, dedicated and hardworking men and women.

People who probably wouldn't go "Eurgh, a vulture is sitting on the Space Shuttle! I'm not getting in that."

[Ashles]

Oh I've read a bit more of his blog.


Having given the impression that mediums consist mainly of untested celebrity figures, Montenegro then launches into the standard litany of complaints.
Why do recently dead people have trouble communicating? Where do they get these [symbolic] objects that they show Edward and Van Praagh? Why can’t they just project their thoughts into Edward’s mind? Why are their messages so prosaic and, well, boring? The picture one gets of these creatures certainly does not present a very interesting company of people to pass the time with.
Sigh. How many times do these objections need to be answered? The triviality of the messages is necessary because it is only trivial personal details that are evidential. If a medium says that the spirit of your grandmother is coming through, you will probably not be convinced unless Grandma tells you something that only you and she would know. Of necessity, this will be something obscure, unimportant, and personal. As for the difficulties of communication, well, why should we expect messages from a dimension outside the space-time universe to be delivered flawlessly? This is like saying that telephones don't work because sometimes there is static on the line.

*Bigger sigh*

Well that's one author to avoid.

[Ashles]

Oh now I'm really annoyed.


One of the strangest skeptical objections to psychic research is that psychic phenomena cannot be "replicated on demand." In other words, it is impossible to predict the outcome of any single psi experiment with certainty. One person may score well above chance in a mind-reading test, while the next person may score at chance or below. Since replication is a key concept in science, skeptics conclude that psi has not been scientifically verified.
This criticism is strange because it overlooks the crucial distinction between the hard sciences and the social sciences. In a hard science, such as chemistry, replication of individual test results can indeed be expected. If you mix two chemicals together under the same conditions, you will get the same chemical reaction - every time. But social science experiments are not like this, because the test subjects in these experiments are people, and people vary in their abilities and biases and behavior.
Suppose you're a social scientist testing memory. You place a large number of items in a room, then have a volunteer sit in the room for a few minutes. Next, you remove the volunteer from the room and ask him to list all the items he remembers. If you run this test with twenty different volunteers, you may get twenty different responses - because people's powers of observation and memory vary widely. How, then, can you get any usable data? You must run the experiment a hundred times or a thousand, until you have collected a large enough database to permit drawing statistical inferences. Then you may conclude that the average person remembers, say, fifty percent of the items in the room.
The fact that no two people may remember the exact same list of items certainly does not prove that there is no such thing as memory. It merely shows that memory varies from person to person.
Parapsychology is a branch of the social sciences, and the same rules apply.

Is he really implying that a psychologist could not devise a replicable experiment to demonstrate that memory actually exists?

What an utter idiot. Really - I quite despise him.

I hate this whole argument that parapsychology is like psychology.

Psychology has demonstrated many replicable observations about the mind and the nature of thought, speech, memory, perception etc.

Parapsychology... hasn't produced replicable results about anything. At all. Ever. Not even that the subjects it studies actually exist.
Comparisons of the two are idiotic.

And even this guy still thinks Zammit's been had? Victor - that don't look good.

[Mike D.]

Ashles, you haven't yet said anything about Prescott's specific criticisms of the seance Zammit attended. Do you have any thoughts on those?

[Ashles]

Ashles, you haven't yet said anything about Prescott's specific criticisms of the seance Zammit attended. Do you have any thoughts on those?
Yes - most people here would probably come to the same conclusions on most of those points.

Trickery in a seance like that is not very difficult.

What sort of comments were you looking for? I just found it more interesting that someone could appear to be sceptical about certain aspects of a specific seance, and then totally the opposite in various other areas.
It's clear he believes that seances can be genuine
Now, I think paranormal phenomena - including materializations - are sometimes genuine.
So his account of how a very standard seance could be faked is not really the most interesting aspect of this to me.

[Mike D.]

Ashles, I was looking for any comments you might care to make that related to the seance Zammit attended or to Prescott's specific criticisms of it. You have now shared your comments on that, so I am satisfied.

[Ashles]

Oh, well that's good then.

[Zep]

You need to remember this salient point: Victor Zammit is off his trolley. He's lost it, he's a kook, he's nuttier than a fruitcake. He's not unintelligent nor incompetent, just that his cogs are definitely slipping most of the time.

[JimTheBrit]

I love Vic Zammit's weekly reports as there's always a guarantee of a belly laugh. This week's revelations:

"WORLD SHATTERING SCIENTIFIC AFTERLIFE EXPERIENCES:– David Thompson - one of the World’s Foremost Direct Voice & Materialisation Mediums. Next meeting tonight Friday 7th July 06. This has NOTHING to do with faith, nothing to do with belief. This has nothing to do with theories or theology or what somebody said thousands of years ago. This is here and now. This is empiricism. This is science. This is a scientific repeatable experiment. The results are just revolutionary. Tell your friends – tell everyone. This is the greatest proof for survival in the history of mankind."

[Mike D.]

Michael Prescott has continued to post on his blog about this topic. And at one point he references Ashles' posts in this thread. He also discusses Victor Zammit's rebuttal to Prescott that Zammit has posted on his (Zammit's) website.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/

[JimTheBrit]

Michael Prescott has continued to post on his blog about this topic. And at one point he references Ashles' posts in this thread. He also discusses Victor Zammit's rebuttal to Prescott that Zammit has posted on his (Zammit's) website.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/

His satire's as funny as hell but still not a patch on the real thing.

[jazzalta]

You need to remember this salient point: Victor Zammit is off his trolley. He's lost it, he's a kook, he's nuttier than a fruitcake. He's not unintelligent nor incompetent, just that his cogs are definitely slipping most of the time.

Refute his book then.

[The Fool]

Refute his book then.
probably better if you tell us about one thing his book establishes....otherwise you could waste some time refuting the invisible unicorn I have in my pocket....interested?

[jazzalta]

probably better if you tell us about one thing his book establishes....otherwise you could waste some time refuting the invisible unicorn I have in my pocket....interested?

The existence of the afterlife.

[Loss Leader]

I have been in email contact with Victor Zammit for several weeks. As a lawyer myself, I though Victor was not being honest with himself about the serious flaws in his arguments.

In our correspondence, he frequently changed the subject, retreated from some points and made the most ludicrous statements of "fact." The truth of the thing really has to be taken as a given in order for him to prove the truth of the thing - his arguments about "ectoplasm" being a prime example.

I have to say that he has been a remarkably polite, well-spoken and deferential correspondent and I enjoy his emails immensely.

His emails are at work and I will post excerpts tomorrow if anyone has an interest.

[jazzalta]

...The truth of the thing really has to be taken as a given in order for him to prove the truth of the thing..."

Okay, that's clear.

[Loss Leader]

Okay, that's clear.

Well, for example, Victor says the medium exudes ectoplasm. I ask for a sample and he says that he can't get a sample because, as everyone knows, if you interupt the medium during the seance the ectoplasm will "snap back" and kill him. You have to believe in ectoplasm in order to see proof of ectoplasm. Does that make it less unclear?

[jazzalta]

It may be clearer but I disagree. It is possible to be at a seance and not be cognizant of ectoplasm.

[DreadNiK]

It may be clearer but I disagree. It is possible to be at a seance and not be cognizant of ectoplasm.

Uhhh...how does that disagree?

[Loss Leader]

My first email to Victor and his rather long response were published by him on his website. My email appears in its entirety at the bottom of the page.

Go here (http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/lawyernychallengesthompson.htm) to read our first round of correspondence.

[juryjone]

Loss Leader,

You certainly have more patience than I do for this kind of thing.


This ectoplasm was the ‘medium’ which reduced the afterlife vibrations of the etherians to physical vibrations for materializations - for the etherians to become solid. Those with scientific background have scientifically explained materialization process in my chapter 6 of my book, Einstein’s ‘E=mc2 and materialization’


Mr. Zammit needs to keep an eye out for the Loony Detector Van.

[jazzalta]

Mr. Zammit needs to keep an eye out for the Loony Detector Van.

I don't think I've ever seen as many ad hominems as on this forum. Zammit's premise is quite simple. Read the book. Then either accept it or refute it. Get some cash if you can replicate some of his experiments. Name calling and belittling is for the school yard.

[gnome]

Nothing of significance to contribute, but every time I see the name Victor Zammit, Eddie Murphy pops into my head and yells, "I'm Victor, Dammit!"

[J. Arthur Hastur]

David Thompson is dead?

[JimTheBrit]

I don't think I've ever seen as many ad hominems as on this forum. Zammit's premise is quite simple. Read the book. Then either accept it or refute it. The JREF can provide documentary evidence, in the form of a copy of a bank statement, that the award they offer genuinely exists. Can Zammit? If not, perhaps he can provide evidence of a pledge for his monetary prize? How exactly is 'The Committee' drawn up? Why would anybody of a sound mind agree to condition 7? ("The applicant agrees that the level of proof required to rebut the evidence will be the Cartesian test, "beyond any doubt". This means that there has to be absolutely no doubt at all in the minds of the Committee that the 'evidence' has been rebutted.").
Get some cash if you can replicate some of his experiments. Name calling and belittling is for the school yard.You don't get the award if you replicate his experiments*. You get the award if you can convince him he's wrong.

Edit: *If you mean that replicating the medium's feats via non-paranormal means will put the onus back on Zammit to show they weren't faked, read his response to Loss Leader's email (described as an attack on Zammit's home page) - see link above. Zammit totally fails to realise the significance of what this would mean.

[Loss Leader]

If you mean that replicating the medium's feats via non-paranormal means will put the onus back on Zammit to show they weren't faked, read his response to Loss Leader's email (described as an attack on Zammit's home page) - see link above. Zammit totally fails to realise the significance of what this would mean.

I argue to Victor in a later email that asking a magician to replicate the seance would be pointless because the "magic" is in the eye of the beholder. With a medium, he sees paranormal phenomena. But with a magician, his mind wouldn't let him past the idea that it's all a trick. In not arguing the point, he sort of (as much as Victor could) agreed with me.

I will post those emails tomorrow.

[Loss Leader]

I don't think I've ever seen as many ad hominems as on this forum. Zammit's premise is quite simple. Read the book. Then either accept it or refute it. Get some cash if you can replicate some of his experiments. Name calling and belittling is for the school yard.


Victor's premise is anything but simple. He weaves his way through such a mess of evidence, justifications, cherry-picked history and more that unravelling any testable kernal is hopeless. I am trying to get him to focus on some single claim that he can prove or disprove but he is a slippery individual.

Still, as far as ad hominem attacks, I will repeat that he is the nicest pen-pal I have ever had and I would be happy to trade emails with him all day.

[jazzalta]

You don't get the award if you replicate his experiments*. You get the award if you can convince him he's wrong.


Not entirely. If you read Zammit's site you'd find this: "There is an irresistable allurement of $500,000 for any debunker to try to duplicate what we do in our materialization experiments."

[steenkh]

Not entirely. If you read Zammit's site you'd find this: "There is an irresistable allurement of $500,000 for any debunker to try to duplicate what we do in our materialization experiments."

And you get the $500,000 if you can replicate the experiment without doubt in Victor Zammit's mind?

[R.Mackey]

Not entirely. If you read Zammit's site you'd find this: "There is an irresistable allurement of $500,000 for any debunker to try to duplicate what we do in our materialization experiments."

This seems rather too vague for any meaningful comment. What is it exactly that he "does" in his "experiments," precisely? And why should we believe that he actually does this? One difficult-to-reproduce example would be sufficient.

[gnome]

Randi's challenge does not depend on getting Randi to agree to anything. Victor can ensure the money stays safe simply by saying "no" regardless of what happens.

If Randi chose to be that obtuse he could be sued if someone performed the challenge successfully--someone dealing with Victor has no such recourse.

[Loss Leader]

In response to Victor's long answer to my first email, I sent him the following message (edited for space):

Victor -

Imagine, for a moment, that there some court case has come to trial in which the issue is whether the phenomena experienced during the David Thompson seance were paranormal in origin. Imagine that I am the attorney for the plaintiff and you are the star witness for the defense, testifying as you have in your initial report and in your response to me. My question to you is this: Do you believe that you have presented enough evidence to convince an unbiased jury that your experiences that day were more likely paranormal than normal?

I ask if you believe that your case has already been shown by a preponderance of the evidence.

The reasons that I believe an impartial jury would not be swayed by your presentation is that the seance you described with David Thompson left too much room for other explanations. The absence of light is a terrible blow, in my opinion, to your credibility. Vision is our most precise perceptive tool; precise in a way that hearing simply is not. There is a reason the person is called an "eye-witness" and not a "sound-witness."

Adding to the problems with your first-hand testimony is the fact that you could have done so much more to assure yourself of the reality of these materializations, even within the confines of the total darkness Mr. Thompson required. You could have worn night-vision or heat-vision goggles. Neither emits any energy whatsoever; they just passively observe the energy in the room. These would have put to rest much doubt right away.

Now, you have stated that ectoplasm is a very delicate substance. Any energy, even photons of light, would disturb it. However, the night-vision and heat-vision equipment emits no energy. There is no reason why it could not have been employed except, of course, that doing so would have revealed the trick.

In my closing, I would have invited the jury to marvel at ectoplasm - apparently the world’s most shy material. Scientists can rip atoms apart but no one can produce a clearly testable sample of ectoplasm. You may say that some samples of ectoplasm have been gathered and tested, but this would contradict your earlier statement that it could not survive light. In fact, you blame it for the death of Helen Duncan. I would be sure the jury learned that Helen Duncan was a three hundred pound woman who, in reality, died five weeks after the police raid on her seance.

I would not let up on the subject of ectoplasm. Only gifted mediums can produce it, but I would ask the jury to wonder whether they were mediums before they started producing it or did they become mediums after they realized they had this power? If it is the latter, it seems to me that some hospital somewhere should have received a call from some very frightened individual stating, "Help! My body is exuding a sticky white substance and when I turn on the lights it vanishes!" If ectoplasm "snapping back" can cause injury, I would wonder why there is no medical record of any such injury. At the very least, there should be records of mental health inquiries as people, not yet understanding their gift, sought help because they believed they were going insane.

Maybe one first becomes a medium and then gains the power to emit ectoplasm. If that is the case, it still presents problems for your case. There would basically be no observable difference between the charlatan that becomes more adept and brazen in his deceit during fake seances by slowly including his "ectoplasm" bit and the real medium who becomes more in touch with the spirit world and slowly starts to emit ectoplasm. My alternative explanation seems, to me at least, to be more likely than not.

I would never let the jury out of their seats without suggesting that you could have taken a much more active role in the seance. What I would have done when shaking hands Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is this: I would have tackled the man to the ground. I would have lunged at him and held fast to him while screaming for someone to turn on the lights. One of two things would have happened: Mr. Doyle would have disappeared and left you in a heap or the lights would have revealed you accosting Mr. Thompson’s confederate. Either way, you have a much more definite answer.

The fact is that you did not attack the spirit who shook you hand. You did not use night-vision to observe the room. You took in the spectacle. This leads to a point that I would not let escape on my cross-examination: You may well have been biased in favor of one interpretation of events. Many witnesses have personal biases. It is a fact borne out in experiment after experiment that preconceptions shape experience. People who expect to see X will be more likely to report having seen X.

This is why your demand that a magician recreate the Thompson seance is unacceptable: If one knows it is a trick, the mind will not allow one to perceive it as supernatural. If one believes it is supernatural, the mind will not allow one to perceive the trick. I would make certain the jury knew this and I would ask them to dismiss your challenge on such a ground.

But your dismissal of the James Randi challenge is another matter. You state that the challenge is propaganda and that Mr. Randi does not negotiate in good faith. I counter with this: Such negotiation is free. Except for the cost of a few stamps for the initial application, it is completely free. It can all be done over the internet. There is no cost to you to submit an application and negotiate the test protocols with Mr. Randi’s organization and/or a local Australian organization appointed to oversee the challenge. If, as you say, Mr. Randi negotiates in bad faith, changes his terms, or refuses to accept reasonable protocols, you will have the proof to back up your beliefs. You would be able to post the entire exchange on your website and prove, at almost no cost, that your allegations about him are correct. Your refusal to do so, I would argue to a jury, is more evidence that you know your claims are unsupportable.

The last point I would make to the jury is a historical one. I would describe the work of Mesmer, the Fox sisters and others. I would make sure that the jury knew of the work of Harry Houdini, who investigated the mediums of the nineteenth century and wrote, "Nothing has crossed my path to make me think that the Great Almighty will allow emanations from the human body of such horrible, revolting, vicious shapes, which like 'genie from the bronze bottle' ring bells, move handkerchiefs, wobble tables and do other flapdoodle stunts."

I would suggest to the jury that every event that took place in the Thompson seance also took place in nineteenth century seances that were proven or confessed to be fake. . I cannot find a single event in your description that did not occur in a fraudulent seance. In fact, many seances back then were far more intricate and included levitation and the production of ectoplasm in broad daylight. If Mr. Thompson produced these phenomena by paranormal means, I would conclude, he did it the hard way.

Hearing the case that I would put on, I ask again whether you think your argument would sway an unbiased jury. I look forward to your response.

(To date, Victor has not directly responded to any points I made in this email.)

[juryjone]

I don't think I've ever seen as many ad hominems as on this forum. Zammit's premise is quite simple. Read the book. Then either accept it or refute it. Get some cash if you can replicate some of his experiments. Name calling and belittling is for the school yard.

I don't consider what I wrote to be an ad hominem. Zammit names at least three things in the first sentence of the quote that he believes to be real and which I consider imaginary. He considers them to be real even though they have not been scientifically proven, despite his statements to the contrary. Could you please point me to scientific proof of any of the following:

1) ectoplasm
2) afterlife vibrations
3) etherians

Until I see the proof for these items, I feel I am justified in thinking that Mr. Zammit may need professional help.

Besides, ad hominem is attacking the argument fallaciously because of a characteristic of the person that puts forth the argument. I am attacking Mr. Zammit directly on the grounds that he is a loon.

[kalen]

Randi's challenge does not depend on getting Randi to agree to anything.

Well, both Randi and the applicant have to agree on a protocol. Mind you, that's before any demonstration/test takes place.



My question is: has Victor ever caught anyone faking these seances even once. How would he know if he's being fooled?

If you can get Victor to attend a staged seance without his knowledge that it's fake, he'd probably endorse it as paranormal. *Then* ask him for his $0.5M prize when you show him he's been had. You might need lots of video evidence - both of the seance and of his endorsement of its paranormal genuineness and authenticity.

When he doesn't pay up, put the videos on the web for all to see.

[Flange Desire]

I am attacking Mr. Zammit directly on the grounds that he is a loon.

I will second that!
Having corresponded with him a few times over the years,
I can second the notion that this guy is barking mad and a raving loon.

[Loss Leader]

Victor never directly answered my email about his seances. Instead, he changed the subject to an attack on Randi. I believe his point was that Randi lacked credibility and that is why Victor wouldn't deal with him. but, as usual, his evidence and his conclusion didn't match.

He wrote:

Here is something which is worth ‘millions’ as evidence. Here is J Randi caught cheating on television. Talk to you soon. Enjoy: YouTube - Don Lane and James Randi 1980

I replied:

Victor - You really do make my point for me. People see what they are expecting to see. I don't know what evidence you think the Don Lane video presents for your case. Of course Randi cheated. Of course he bent the key first. James Randi has no magic powers. He cannot bend keys by paranormal means.

Now, the question is why did Randi do such an amateurish job with the key? The answer is simple: he was unprepared. In order to practice their illusions successfully, magicians must prepare. Don Lane sandbagged Randi by demanding a trick after promising Randi that he was there to confront a local psychic. Even then, Lane does not catch Randi bending the key but only becomes angry after Randi successfully performs the illusion.

But Randi at least tried to perform while unprepared. How did Uri Geller do in similar circumstances? Geller was similarly sandbagged on the Tonight Show. He did not even attempt a trick. Instead, he did nothing. Why? he was unprepared. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O90yvyTd5Y

And here's a page that shows step by step exactly how Geller bends spoons including the very frame of film where Geller is caught bending the spoon with his own hands: http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/urispoon.htm Will your beliefs in the paranormal allow you to see the trick?

Your post regarding Randi on the Don Lane show leads me to believe you think Randi and Geller are somehow different. They are not. They are both magicians, they both need to prepare and they both suck when they are not completely in control of the environment.

Here is Victor's astonishing answer:

I thought the video clip was rather funny really AND it showed Randi cheating!

You know very well that clip would be fundamentally harmful for Randi in litigation. “Do you cheat …” – indubitably, the yes/no answer will unqualifiedly be “YES.”

So when he says he ‘rubs’ the key to ‘bend’ it, he is cheating, lying, misleading, being deceitful and fraudulent.

Is he cheating, lying, misleading etc… in other matters – eg his alleged $1m offer?

“Of course, he is” one claim would be.

Uri Geller is a different case. We are dealing with Randi and his cheating. Is he credible?

Of course he’s not credible– especially when he told one of the founders of CSICOP, something Randi never disputed, that Randi will ‘always have a way out of paying’ (re challenge).

Being prepared or unprepared – the viewers judged Randi on that erformance.

As to spoon bending, I some years ago watched a documentary about psychics in the military - an Army general stated that he himself learnt how to bend spoons a la Geller.

I responded to Victor as clearly as I knew how, deleting all references to Geller and concentrating on his claim that James Randi's career as a magician made him an unreliable person overall.

Victor - For the record, I don't believe that the Lane appearance is any blow to Randi's credibility at all. It's not just an insignificant blow, it is of no weight or consequence whatsoever. I don't believe a court (at least in my jurisdiction) would even admit it into evidence, it is so irrelevant.

Here's why I think so: All magicians do magic tricks. The rings don't really pass through one another; the lady isn't really cut in half; the Statue of Liberty doesn't really disappear. Magic is a lie. It is deception. If you believe that Randi being caught performing the critical maneuver on TV damages his credibility, then you must believe that all magicians lack credibility. Just because we haven't caught Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear doesn't mean he didn't cheat. We know he cheated because we know that the Statue of Liberty cannot disappear. Since declaring all magicians incompetent to testify in court is an absurd result, I don't think you can declare any magician unreliable due solely to his profession.

But there's more. Randi is a very special magician. He is one of the only few who repeats publicly, loudly and frequently that everything he does is a trick. He reminds the audience that he does not really have any magic power and that he is deceiving them through sleight of hand. That, to me, makes him an excellent witness. Here's a guy who cannot lie even to advance his professional career, even just to make it through a single show - he feels compelled to confess that he has misled us the moment he does so. Compare that to, say, David Blaine or Chris Angel who refuse to admit that they're doing tricks but encourage a certain supernatural air about themselves. Compare that to, dare I say, Uri Geller who loudly and persistently insists that he is in fact performing supernatural fetes.

Then add in Randi's almost lifetime obsession to exposing cheats and frauds. He has run down faith healers and psychic surgeons and all manner of con artists. He was the one who snuck the equipment in to a Peter Poppov revival and caught the preacher's wife broadcasting people's names and ailments in his ear. His passion for revealing people who refuse to admit that they are doing tricks for entertainment purposes makes him an even more reliable witness.

You have not, to my mind, given me any reason at all to doubt Randi's credibility. Unless, of course, Randi were to suddenly jump up and announce that he could psychically bend keys. In that case, I would disbelieve him based on your evidence. For that matter, if anyone anywhere jumped up and announced he could psychically bend keys, I would also disbelieve him based on your evidence. Now whom do we know who makes a claim like that?

Victor then abruptly dropped the subject and has not brought it up again.

[kalen]

That last email is great. You won't get a reply.

[Luke T.]

People are still doing ectoplasm?

That is amazing! Simply amazing that people still fall for that crap.

Zammit needs to read The Psychic Mafia (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1573921610/103-4758777-4472616?v=glance&n=283155) to see every single trick used in the seance he attended explained.

What a rube!

[Luke T.]

Prior to entering the room I was asked to search the medium and confirm that he had nothing under his clothing. Rosheen and I checked his track pants, pockets, his cardigan and his shoes to make sure that they were normal. All of the other sitters were searched as well and asked to leave outside anything metal, lighters, matches, mobile phones etc.

Flashlights...

Anything which could be used to illuminate the room or take a photo at a crucial moment and expose what was really going down.

No matches. Says it all.

[Luke T.]

I guess seances are forbidden to the handicapped since no metal is allowed. Right?

[Luke T.]

I am a smoker. I am never without a lighter. And my lighter has less metal in it than my wedding ring. You think everyone gives up their jewelry to these scum?

And there is way more metal in my belt buckle than in my lighter. You think these scum had the sitters take off their belts?

Hell, there's more metal in my dang zipper than in my lighter. You think these scum had their sitters disrobe?

Scum. An ad hom. You betcha. No way a person can do a physical manifestation and be deluded in believing they are psychic. They are open, out and out, frauds.

I bet these scum laugh up their damn sleeves about making everyone give up their light sources under the guise of ensuring no fraud is taking place when they are actually ensuring it can occur without fear of getting caught!

[Luke T.]

Well, for example, Victor says the medium exudes ectoplasm. I ask for a sample and he says that he can't get a sample because, as everyone knows, if you interupt the medium during the seance the ectoplasm will "snap back" and kill him. You have to believe in ectoplasm in order to see proof of ectoplasm. Does that make it less unclear?

Okay. From pages 98-100 of The Psychic Mafia by M. Lamar Keene, who came clean after being a medium for 20 years or so. See if any of it sounds like the seance Zammit attended, and notice what he says about ectoplasm and the snap back effect:

First, from Zammit's site:

At the end of the room where we were sitting the windows had been blocked out and there was no furniture except for a number of straight backed chairs and a large modular display cabinet about 2.5 meters (8 feet) tall in which it would have been impossible to conceal even a small person. The medium’s chair which had arms was in the corner of the room. There were no trapdoors –walls, floors and ceiling or recesses in the room. Once everyone was seated, the door was locked and the key given to me. A large sheet of cardboard was stuck over the door to block any light and to seal the only door to the séance room. A chair was placed behind the door underneath the handle for added security.

The chair on which the medium sat was a metal one. The arms were securely fastened, there were no loose connections and there was nothing unusual underneath the chair. The chair was placed in the corner of the room without a cabinet. The sitters sat in a semi-circle facing the medium. The medium was strapped into the chair by means of secure belts and buckles firmly attached to the chair.

An 8 foot tall cabinet that not even a small person could fit in? Excuse me?

Anyway, from The Psychic Mafia:


Let's move into the seance room for a typical reunion between the living and the dead. There was a semicircle of chairs in front of the "cabinet". The cabinet is a venerable institution in spiritualism, comparable to the baptismal font or the alter in other churches. It's simply a curtain drawn around an area, say eight feet by six feet, to make a closed-off cubicle; sometimes the curtain is simply drawn across the corner of the room.

The sitters were invited to inspect the cabinet before the lights were turned out to see for themselves that there was no trap door or other secret entrance. (If there had been, and in many cases there are, the sitters won't find it.) In our seance room we had a hidden entrance, but not in the cabinet; it was in another part of the room and in the dark provided access for a confederate if he were needed.

From Zammit's site:
Some of the sitters are highly experienced in physical mediumship and very familiar with the tricks used by imposters claiming to be physical mediums.
Prior to entering the room I was asked to search the medium and confirm that he had nothing under his clothing. Rosheen and I checked his track pants, pockets, his cardigan and his shoes to make sure that they were normal. All of the other sitters were searched as well and asked to leave outside anything metal, lighters, matches, mobile phones etc.

From The Psychic Mafia:

Besides the cabinet, sitters were invited to inspect me to determine that I had nothing on my person to aid me in impersonating the spirits. Sometimes this search was perfunctory, sometimes more thorough.

From Zammit's site:
Beside the séance leader’s chair was a CD player with a music CD, a small lamp with red globes and a cardboard trumpet, the end of which was coated with luminous paint.

From The Psychic Mafia:
When we were ready to proceed, I would enter the cabinet, in which was placed a single chair, and draw the curtains. The lights were turned off except for one large red bulb controlled by a dimmer switch which cast enough glow to illuminate the ectoplasm.

And now, about your comment, Loss Leader, on page 100 of The Psychic Mafia:
Usually there is present at every materialization seance a "cabinet attendant", who is actually the medium's bodyguard. Spiritualists explain his or her role as that of protecting the medium from malicious intruders who might try to grab the ectoplasm and thereby cause the poor medium grave injury, even death. (Heartbreaking stories were told to the faithful about mediums who had suffered internal hemorrhages and writhed on the floor in agony after some heartless knave grabbed their ectoplasm. The official dogma was that rude touching of ectoplasm caused it to recoil into the medium's body with savage force -- like being hit in the gut by a giant rubber band.

That was written 30 years ago!

And these mediums of Zammit's are still playing it by the same book!

From Zammit's site:
Often the entities would begin speaking using direct voice- an artificial larynx constructed from ectoplasm- the sound coming from close to the medium.

From The Psychic Mafia in 1976, page 49 - 50:
How does a medium react if she's grabbed or exposed?
Well, there's a right way and a wrong way.

He then explain a humorous incident that demonstrates the wrong way. Then:
The right way to react to exposure was demonstrated by the most unflappable medium of them all, Mighty Mable. Once she was in the dark talking through the trumpet and the lights suddenly came on. She too had her eyes shut tight and went right on talking.
When she opened her eyes the sitter (there was only one) was looking at her.
"Mable," the sitter said, "you were talking through the trumpet."
Without batting an eyelash, the old pro deadpanned, "I was being controlled by a spirit and he was using my body and vocal cords rather than building a voice box from ectoplasm."

Uncanny, isn't it? The similarities between the book written 30 years ago by an admitted fraud and Zammit's report? An artificial larynx constructed from ectoplasm. The sound coming from close to the medium.

Wake up, Zammit!!!

[Luke T.]

So what is this wild and wacky substance known as "ectoplasm" that can kill mediums if you should grab it?

The Psychic Mafia, page 101:

It's amazing what effects can be created in the dark manipulating yards and yards of chiffon and gauze which appears to shimmer in the unearthly glow of the ruby light. What I did was what magicians call "black art." The parts of me not covered by ectoplasm were garbed totally in black and were quite invisible in the dark. (For trumpet sittings, which I'll explain next, I wore a head-to-foot black outfit, including a mask over my face which rendered me as unseen as The Shadow used to be in his famous adventures.)
Standing in the seance room in my invisible outfit I would deftly unroll a ball of chiffon out to the middle of the floor and manipulate it until eventually it enveloped me. What the sitters saw was a phenomenon: A tiny ball of ectoplasm sending out shimmering tendrils which gradually grew or developed into a fully formed materialized spirit. Unless you have witnessed the effect under seance conditions you'll find it hard to grasp how eerily convincing it can be.

"eerily convincing"

I'm reminded of an old ad jingle...

You may think it's ectoplasm,
but it's not!
It's Chiffon!

[Luke T.]

So what do mediums think of their clients? How do they differ in private from the public face of love and affection they show for their rubes?

Page 58:
On the basis of my experience I'd say that most of them believe nothing. Their lives are empty of faith in anything except the buck.
At Chesterfield nothing was sacred. People were things to be used. The Bible is exhibited in most spiritualist churches but in their hearts mediums scorn it -- and openly too, when they are with their own kind.
The joke about Jesus' virgin birth were many and varied but had one thing in common; the scabrous quality.
A group of us were talking one night after the suckers had gone and we could let our ectoplasm down. One woman medium said: "Now that bitch Mary was smart, making Joseph do without while she screwed around. And even when she got knocked up she lied her way out of it. No wonder Jesus wound up as an open medium!"
My partner, Raoul, used to quip, "Poor Jesus, he didn't get paid for walking on the water."


Page 59:
One long-time medium at Chesterfield who specialized in spirit images impregnated on silk -- a simpler-than-simple technique that I'll explain in the chapter on secrets of the seance -- was so contemptuous of the sitters' intelligence that he opposed my attempts to upgrade the evidential quality of the phenomena. As he saw it, the sitters didn't deserve even convincing fraud. The cheapest, silliest, most palpable fakery was more than good enough for them.

Wake up, Zammit!!!

[Luke T.]

How much chiffon do you think can be concealed in an eight foot tall cabinet?

[Loss Leader]

In our emails, Victor had dropped the subject of possible fakery at his seances in favor of an attack on James Randi. He then dropped that, too. His next email came as something of a surprise. I took it as progress. he wrote:

We were talking last night as to what it would take to persuade an open minded skeptic that the phenomena is real.

Just a quickie: can you answer this: we agree to a venue. I get my medium to sit in a chair – you and me tie and gag him to his chair (with arms) using any traps of your choice. We’ll put the lights off – so that no harm will come to the medium.

Since we’ll be dealing with afterlife energy and ectoplasm – it is critical to confirm to the rules accordingly: the procedure usually is a) request for protection, music to increase the vibrations … then the voices come through. You will be in a position to ask William (and others) – any question you like. And you will get intelligent answers. I state that the voices were those who used to live on earth. We can even do voice correlations – how they sounded on earth with their materialized voices.

Now would that satisfy you that these are entities who they claim to be? Or what additional, if any, procedure you would suggest for you to be totally convinced as to what is happening?

I responded to him very quickly:

I am entirely the wrong type of person to even be testing Mr. Thompson's claims. I am not a scientist and have no great experience with designing experiments. I don't even have a great knowledge of magic and what may or may not be possible for a magician to accomplish by trick. This is why I wish you would negotiate a protocol with James Randi's organization or, at least, post on his message board. Those people (unaffiliated with the actual JREF) seem to be very good at coming up with testing protocols.

Part of the problem that I have answering you is that I'm still not entirely certain what Mr. Thompson claims to be able to do. For, example, I would love to roll a ten-sided die ten times to produce a ten digit number at home. I would write down the number, fold the paper and seal it in an envelope before the séance. I would then like to leave the envelope at home and, if possible, not even attend the séance. Mr. Thompson could do whatever he wanted - produce any voices or other emanations - so long as he somehow states what the 10 digit number is. But you have never claimed that this is something that he can do, so it would be unfair to demand this as the test.

Likewise, I don't know if Mr. Thompson has any control over what spirits are called or what they will or will not say. I do not know if the spirits know only what they knew in life or if they have access to a more general database of knowledge. Could he produce a nephrologist who could answer detailed questions about kidney function? Or a famed mathematician who could write us a long proof of some arcane concept? If Mr. Thompson has no particular experience in medicine or mathematics, I would be very impressed by his ability to conjure such details.

But I would not be impressed by his ability to do so at random. For example, if I were to sit for a séance and he produced a famed engineer who lectured for two hours about loads and stresses and brittleness and whatever, it would prove nothing other than that he had done extensive research before the séance. I would have to bring along an expert whose identity and area of expertise is unknown to all participants until during the séance when he would reveal himself to be, say, a professor of archeology and begin peppering Thompson with questions about the Acadians or what-have-you.

Still, I do not know if Thompson is claiming to be able to do this. If he cannot call a particular spirit at will, there is no reason to believe he could pass such a test and it is entirely unfair to demand it of him.

You have suggested sitting with Thompson, recording the voices we hear and then testing them. This morning, I did some quick research into voice analysis. What I found was both encouraging and discouraging. Vocal analysis is a very young science. There is some reason to believe that trained individuals can determine with high accuracy whether an unknown voice is the same as a sample recording. Most of the time, suspects are forced by the court to read some statements that were caught on a surveillance tape. I do not know if they could tell whether the unknown voice was just another recording of the sample voice. I do not know if they could tell whether an unknown voice was not the sample voice if the subject were TRYING to sound like the sample. (Remember, most suspects probably try to sound as different from the sample as possible.)

So, if Thompson is able to sneak in a tape recording of a dead celebrity, would a professional listening to our tape of the séance be able to tell it was a recording? If Thompson were doing his Johnny Carson impression, would a professional be able to tell it was not genuine? I do not know the answers to these questions.

I hope you see the enormity of the problems created. I think your suggested protocols are insufficient to rule out cheating. Here is my "wish list", some of which may not be possible: The performance demanded of Mr. Thompson should be determined beforehand and nothing but that exact performance should be considered a success. Testing should take place in as controlled a location as possible, any laboratory setting would be very nice. I would very much like no one other than Mr. Thompson in the testing room - no skeptics or believers of any sort. There should be as little in the room other than the test subject as possible - no electronic equipment, not even clothing if possible. And monitoring should be as total as possible - heat and low light sensors, etc. I do not care if your medium is tied up or free. I do not care what he needs to do to first prepare.

These are my initial thoughts. I look forward to hearing your views.

Victor has promised an answer to this email but has not yet sent one.

[Luke T.]

It's very simple how to test the phenomena. An infrared video camera.

[Luke T.]

Oh. Some talcum powder sprinkled on the floor would be good, too.

[Luke T.]

Also, a person stationed in each adjoining room.

What I mean is that there are four walls to a room. An observer should be in each room that is on the opposite side of each wall.

It should be verified they are directly on the other side of the wall by knocking on the entire length of the wall by the observer outside the room to the person inside the room.

[Luke T.]

No infrared video camera, no test. Make it a hard rule.

The camera should be handled by an operator who can aim the camera around the room during the seance.

[Luke T.]

I guarantee you they will not allow that camera.

[Hellbound]

Which opens up another possibility.

Hide the infrared camera. Allow whatever protocol the medium wants, just insist on the location (so you can have a place where the camera can be hidden).

:D

[Luke T.]

The simple fact is that none of these frauds will agree to conditions that would expose their fraud.

[Luke T.]

In July 1960, the spiritualist world was rocked by an explosion that sent shock waves through every seance room in the country and shivers up every medium's spine.
It has become known as the Great Camp Chesterfield Expose.
What happened was so crazy, so zany, that apart from a Peter Sellers movie it could only happen in the weird and wacky world of the psychic.
The sympathetic researchers, Tom O'Neill and Dr. Andrija Puharich, had tried to get the first motion pictures ever of the materialization of a spirit. O'Neill was a believer spiritualist, editor of the monthly newspaper Psychic Observer, and ordained minister of the Indiana Association of Spiritualists (the legal entity which owns and runs Chesterfield), and a close friend of Marble Riffle and other stalwarts at the camp. Puharich was a physician and psychical researcher whom O'Neil had recruited to give the project scientific credibility.
With the enthusiastic support of the Camp Chesterfield authorities, O'Neill and Puharich went into a dark seance room equipped with infrared lights and film (and a snooperscope, a device developed by the United States Army for making night vision possible on the battlefield) and shot the materialization of a ghost.

The researchers were not underhanded in the least (after all, they believed in psychic phenomena, especially O'Neill, and both Edith Stillwell and Mable Riffle were told exactly what the infrared film would do -- make any figures in the totally dark room stand out as clearly as in the light of day -- and were allowed to take a peek for themselves through the snooperscope. The should have alerted them, but unaccountably they went ahead with the project.)
The experiment was a disaster for the spiritualists. Peering through the snooperscope in the dark, Puharich saw that what were supposed to be spirit forms of shimmering ectoplasm materializing out of thin air, were actually figures wrapped in chiffon entering the seance room through a hidden door from and adjacent apartment.
The infrared motion picture confirmed Puharich's observations. There, etched unmistakably on the film, were the familiar faces of camp mediums, dressed up in gauze, impersonating departed spirits.
Tom O'Neill, the devout spiritualist, was devasted by the revelations.

The Psychic Mafia, pages 39 and 40.

Page 41:
We used all kinds of explanations to conjure away the damning film footage that showed the spirits using a secret door. It was all "trick photography", we told our people, and of course the spirit communicators backed us up in our seances. That was good enough for our followers!

[Luke T.]

Here is a link (http://www.freewebs.com/afterlife/articles/chessfraud.htm) of O'Neil's Psychic Observer report of the fiasco in 1960.

A gentleman appeared and announced himself as Brother Ben; he was replete with brilliant headgear that seemed to flow down as far as his waist. He philosophised a bit, then turned to the cabinet to personally bring out another spirit with the statement that—It was her first try at this sort of thing and he wanted to be of help in the situation. This creature was gorgeously arrayed in pink ectoplasm and called herself Sister Mary. Both spirits were on the floor at the same time, which gave us a look at everyone in the room; Brother Ben, Sister Mary, Edith Stillwell, and Mable Riffle. This was great! What camera shots we could take! What Proof we could give to the world! Finally, it was announced that the power had run out and that the séance would have to come to an end. In due time the white lights were turned on and we sat back congratulating each other on the wonder of it all.
Frankly, there wasn't much sleep for either of us that night. Puharich and I sat on the front porch of the Western Hotel until 2 a.m. planning our camera layout, and when we finally did hit the sack, sleep for me was mighty hard to come by.

Little did I know of the great shock for that was in store for me.

[Luke T.]

Here's a lame seance on video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBnowFO8IUM) in the dark. Notice no materializations. Just a cold reading.

[Ashles]

Michael Prescott has continued to post on his blog about this topic. And at one point he references Ashles' posts in this thread. He also discusses Victor Zammit's rebuttal to Prescott that Zammit has posted on his (Zammit's) website.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/
I've just come across this:
Really, is it so hard to grasp the concept of evaluating each claim on a case-by-case basis? Well, apparently it is hard, since a lot of people prefer to take the easy way out and simply decide that it's all genuine or it's all bogus - no exceptions. This at least saves them the trouble of thinking.
Ah yes, lessons on thinking from the man who doesn't (won't?) understand why parapsychology 'experiments' have yielded no useful results, and won't get in anything a vulture has sat on.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The Psychic Mafia, pages 39 and 40.
The researchers were not underhanded in the least (after all, they believed in psychic phenomena, especially O'Neill, and both Edith Stillwell and Mable Riffle were told exactly what the infrared film would do -- make any figures in the totally dark room stand out as clearly as in the light of day -- and were allowed to take a peek for themselves through the snooperscope. The should have alerted them, but unaccountably they went ahead with the project.)
Page 41:

If I am remembering correctly from an episode of the Long John Nebel show on WOR at about the date this occurred, it was stated that the snooperscope "was not working" when it was initially demonstrated. Someone might ask Randi -- I think he was on the same show. He was a regular guest in any case.

Gord

[Mike D.]

Victor Zammit has posted a report on his site about a David Thompson seance he attended just last night.

http://www.victorzammit.com/

[Loss Leader]

Victor Zammit has posted a report on his site about a David Thompson seance he attended just last night.

http://www.victorzammit.com/


He claims the medium levitated. Victor touched the bottom of the chair and, it appears but is unclear, the medium's legs. Levitation tricks of this sort are at least 100 years old. Gosh, I would have liked to have flicked on the lights just then.

[Mike D.]

Loss Leader,

Are you planning to write to Victor and explain to him how the levitation trick is done and propose protocols to him that would make the trick impossible to carry out?

Also, I get the impression that the latest seance was held in the dark, even though the spirits decided not to produce any ectoplasm on this occasion. Since that was the case, why not introduce illumination into the room? Is darkness held to be a condition for levitation to take place? If so, why?

Mike

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader,

Are you planning to write to Victor and explain to him how the levitation trick is done and propose protocols to him that would make the trick impossible to carry out?

Also, I get the impression that the latest seance was held in the dark, even though the spirits decided not to produce any ectoplasm on this occasion. Since that was the case, why not introduce illumination into the room? Is darkness held to be a condition for levitation to take place? If so, why?

Mike


You know, I would have about a month ago when I started with Victor. But my estimation is that he knows all this. He is quite the faithful believer - as fervent as any religious person you could meet. He refuses to examine his beliefs logically. Instead, as he is a smart man, he uses the appearance of logic to create a fortress around his beliefs. I am sure he does this quite subconsciously because that is the only way his intellect will allow him to participate in such nonsense.

I have no desire to prod the gentleman further. His answers are always quite unsatisfactory. If you would like to raise these points, I urge you to write him. I promise his response will be swift, polite and utterly incomprehensible.

[Mike D.]

Victor Zammit is continuing to give reports of his attendance at the materialization seances of David Thompson. Last week he reported that for the first time, the medium, David Thompson was brought out of trance during the seance and himself was able to talk with the spirits who were communicating. This week, Zammit gives further quotes from William, Thompson's spirit control.

My reaction to a number of discourses by spirits I've read is this: Why can't the spirits talk like normal people? It seems to me that if I found myself continuing to exist after death and found a medium to communicate through, I would probably want to talk in the same way I did while alive. For example, William, Thompson's control, is currently quoted on Zammit's site as speaking of people who are still living "upon the earth vibration." Why not just say, "people who are still living on earth."?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't think I've ever seen as many ad hominems as on this forum. Zammit's premise is quite simple. Read the book. Then either accept it or refute it. Get some cash if you can replicate some of his experiments. Name calling and belittling is for the school yard.
Welcome, Jazz. I think most people on this forum will vouch for me when I say that I am a reasonably level-headed forum member who does not often engage in name calling or ad hominems. That said, Victor Zammit is a whack job.

He has a million dollar prize for anyone who can disprove all the purported evidence of the afterlife. That is not possible. However, any attempt to explain to him why it is not possible meets with derision. He may be the most illlogical lawyer on the planet.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My reaction to a number of discourses by spirits I've read is this: Why can't the spirits talk like normal people? It seems to me that if I found myself continuing to exist after death and found a medium to communicate through, I would probably want to talk in the same way I did while alive. For example, William, Thompson's control, is currently quoted on Zammit's site as speaking of people who are still living "upon the earth vibration." Why not just say, "people who are still living on earth."?
That is not New Agey enough. These spirits are with it, man!

~~ Paul

[Mike D.]

Paul,

This reminds me of a seance I attended several years ago at a Spiritualist church. One of the resident mediums at the church was a trance medium whose control indentified himself as the spirit of an ancient Egyptian teacher. At the seance I attended, the medium went into a trance and his control gave a discourse about death and the afterlife that seemed to me to consist of a simple explanation of basic spiritualist beliefs concerning such matters. If I'd had the opportunity to ask questions of this purported ancient Egyptian teacher, I'd have wanted to ask him to speak some of his native Egyptian language for us, and also ask him if he'd considered contacting prominent currently living Egyptologists. I'm sure these scholars would welcome his first-hand knowledge and insights relating to their field of study!

Mike

[Loss Leader]

If I'd had the opportunity to ask questions of this purported ancient Egyptian teacher, I'd have wanted to ask him to speak some of his native Egyptian language for us, and also ask him if he'd considered contacting prominent currently living Egyptologists. I'm sure these scholars would welcome his first-hand knowledge and insights relating to their field of study!

Mike

I've had similar thoughts concerning this Thompson fellow that Zammit has gotten himself involved with. My only qualm is that Zammit hasn't claimed that the spirit can answer questions (as oposed to just showing up and saying whatever he wants and elaving). He hasn't claimed that the spirit retains any knowledge of what he knew in life. So, it's just a little unfair to make that demand for proof.

But these people aren't interested in proving themselves to be genuine, anyway. There are enough marks who don't demand proof to make a very decent living.

[Mike D.]

I've had similar thoughts concerning this Thompson fellow that Zammit has gotten himself involved with. My only qualm is that Zammit hasn't claimed that the spirit can answer questions (as oposed to just showing up and saying whatever he wants and elaving). He hasn't claimed that the spirit retains any knowledge of what he knew in life. So, it's just a little unfair to make that demand for proof.

But these people aren't interested in proving themselves to be genuine, anyway. There are enough marks who don't demand proof to make a very decent living.

Loss Leader,

Well, the spirit at least retains the ability to speak English, even if it be laced with "New Ageisms," as Paul said.

Furthermore, if a spirit does not retain any knowledge of what he knew in life, then I would question just how that state of affairs can be conceived of as personal survival of death. In what way could we as individuals be considered to have a meaningful survival of death if we could not remember anything we had learned while on earth? As for the "ancient Egyptian teacher" I heard at the seance, if he remembers nothing of his life in ancient Egypt or the language he spoke, etc., why should he even identify himself as ancient Egyptian teacher?

I am afraid that some of these excuses to me sound like cop outs! A medium's claim to fame is that he or she can communicate with the dead. If I go to one, I expect nothing less than to come out of the seance with the same feeling of authenticity as if I'd had a nice telephone conversation with a friend or relative. No excuses!

Mike

[Loss Leader]

I am afraid that some of these excuses to me sound like cop outs!

I agree with you 100%. I told Zammit that if Arthur Conan Doyle shook my hand (as he did Victor's) I would have grabbed him, wrestled him to the ground and shouted for the lights. But if one wants to be fooled, there are plenty of people willing to do so ... for a price.

[Mike D.]

I looked at Victor Zammit's site this morning, and he has on it a rebuttal to the book that Luke has discussed on this thread -- The Psychic Mafia by Keene. From what the site says, it would appear that Loss Leader recently drew Zammit's attention to the book.

http://www.victorzammit.com/

[Loss Leader]

I looked at Victor Zammit's site this morning, and he has on it a rebuttal to the book that Luke has discussed on this thread -- The Psychic Mafia by Keene. From what the site says, it would appear that Loss Leader recently drew Zammit's attention to the book.

http://www.victorzammit.com/

I did, in fact.

In an email to me, Victor told me that his seances could never be tampered with because the medium and all the participants are tied to their chairs. I intend to write back to him detailing just how flawed this reasoning is.

[Loss Leader]

This is the email I just sent to Victor:

I was a little disappointed to read in your last email this claim: "ALL the things he mentioned could never ever happen with us ... the sitters and the medium would be expertly tied to their chairs."

From what I have learned, some mediums favored tying their sitters to chairs because the sitters then could not interfere with the medium's tricks. They could not stand up and turn on a light or feel about to see where the medium was or, as I suggested, jump upon the materialized spirit of Arthur Conan Doyle. Many magicians are expertly tied to chairs or chained in boxes or such only to easily escape. Having the audience tie them down is, in fact, itself an act of misdirection. For some tricks, the magician's confederate does all of the work. For others, escape is ridiculously easy.

If you believe that being tied down during a seance decreases the likelihood of being deceived, I would ask you to examine that assumption more closely.

If I know my pen pal at all, he will very politely tell me that I am an idiot.

[Starrman]

This is the email I just sent to Victor:

I was a little disappointed to read in your last email this claim: "ALL the things he mentioned could never ever happen with us ... the sitters and the medium would be expertly tied to their chairs."

From what I have learned, some mediums favored tying their sitters to chairs because the sitters then could not interfere with the medium's tricks. They could not stand up and turn on a light or feel about to see where the medium was or, as I suggested, jump upon the materialized spirit of Arthur Conan Doyle. Many magicians are expertly tied to chairs or chained in boxes or such only to easily escape. Having the audience tie them down is, in fact, itself an act of misdirection. For some tricks, the magician's confederate does all of the work. For others, escape is ridiculously easy.

If you believe that being tied down during a seance decreases the likelihood of being deceived, I would ask you to examine that assumption more closely.

If I know my pen pal at all, he will very politely tell me that I am an idiot.


I remember this one being exposed on one of those FOX specials. The medium simply has arm rests on the chair that come up, allowing him/her to slide the ropes on and off easily. They can also easily slip back in so the rope remains tied and in tact when the lights come on.

[Mike D.]

One thing I would like to see implemented in testing physical mediums is to have them tested in locations that are completely unfamiliar to them. For example, those doing the testing could take the medium to a room he or she has never been in -- a room designed to prevent the possiblity of fraud. Any chairs used by the medium or sitters should be supplied by those doing the testing. The medium should be strip searched before the seance begins and then clothed in garments provided by the testers. The sitters in the seance should be persons completely unknown to the medium.

[Loss Leader]

One thing I would like to see implemented in testing physical mediums is to have them tested in locations that are completely unfamiliar to them. For example, those doing the testing could take the medium to a room he or she has never been in -- a room designed to prevent the possiblity of fraud. Any chairs used by the medium or sitters should be supplied by those doing the testing. The medium should be strip searched before the seance begins and then clothed in garments provided by the testers. The sitters in the seance should be persons completely unknown to the medium.

Frankly, I see no reason to have sitters at all. Or chairs. Just dump the medium into a police interrogation room, stand behind the glass thing and see what he does. My guess: not much.

[Zep]

I, too, have corresponded with Victor - some time ago before I came to this forum. And it took only one or two emails to grasp the fact that Victor's mind is only tangentially impinging on reality.

FYI, he started all this "departed spirits" and "afterlife" business on the death of his much beloved mother some years ago. Now, I can understand someone being thoroughly distraught at the loss of a loved one, perhaps even in sorrow for the rest of your life, and my sympathies lie entirely with him in that regard.

But to then allow himself to be swept away into these lunatic realms of thought shows a startling loss of sensibility, not to say comprehension, on his part. As I said before, Victor is not a stupid man - he was a High Court lawyer - but to allow himself to be blindsided by the kooks and charlatans, and even to become an outstanding spokesperson for their "cause", indicates clearly his loss of grip on reality.

And despite numerous warnings, he continues to promote them and champion them, to invent newer and more fantastic explanations to support their whacky beliefs as old ones succumb to analysis and rebuttal; so clearly he can be described as having mental issues in perception of the world and reality about him.

In short, he's gone bonkers. So reason does not prevail.

[Mike D.]

Frankly, I see no reason to have sitters at all. Or chairs. Just dump the medium into a police interrogation room, stand behind the glass thing and see what he does. My guess: not much.

Loss Leader,

At this point I am willing to let mediums be tested in settings that retain the basic elements related to the spiritistic paradigm that they allegedly operate in. A physical medium operates within the framework of people (sitters) visiting him or her for the purpose of communicated with deceased individuals who may materilize during the seance or otherwise show that they are present. So, if this setting is what the medium claims to be comfortable with, I would say to let him have it -- only place the medium and sitters in an environment that is as fraud-proof as possible.

As I see it, you logically have three possibilities when considering any seance given by a physical medium:

1. At least some people survive death in some form and some of their spirits sometimes find a physical medium and manifest during seances, speaking through trumpets, producing ectoplasm, materializing, levitating things and persons, playing musical instruments, etc.

2. The phenomena in seances of physical mediums is genuine, but is not produced by spirits. Rather, it is the result of genuine, if unexplained, abilities of the human mind to under certain circumstances manipulate matter in certain ways. The belief that spirits are producing the phenomena is simply the belief-structure of the individuals involved in the seance, and may contribute to the mental atmosphere that permits the phenomena to manifest. But spirits of the dead are actually not invovled at all.

3. The medium is engaged in conscious fraud, and the effects seen in the seances would easily be exposed as fraudulent if sufficient controls were put in place by investigators.

It is disappointing to see that there are investigators of mediumship around who appear to be sincere, but who don't seem willing to put into place controls against fraud that would be relatively easy to implement. And if the medium or the spirits object to implementing any controls that would lead a conclusive judgement about the phenomena, then no one should complain when critical thinkers are highly suspicious concerning the integrity of the medium. One would think if mediums were sincere and wanted their beliefs to be scientifically proved and universally accepted as genuine, that they themselves would eagerly seek out scientists willing to test them and would cooperate with any proposed controls. If I ever came to believe that I had genuine mediumistic abilitites, my first order of business would be not to gain fame and fortune, but to have my abilities scientifically confirmed or disconfirmed.

Mike

[Loss Leader]

At this point I am willing to let mediums be tested in settings that retain the basic elements related to the spiritistic paradigm that they allegedly operate in.
...
It is disappointing to see that there are investigators of mediumship around who appear to be sincere, but who don't seem willing to put into place controls against fraud that would be relatively easy to implement.

What controls would you suggest? Victor has asked me what evidence would satisfy me and I will be glad to incorporate your suggestions into my answer.

[Mike D.]

What controls would you suggest? Victor has asked me what evidence would satisfy me and I will be glad to incorporate your suggestions into my answer.

Loss Leader,

There are probably people out there who can suggest much better controls than I. Basically, though, I'd say a good place to start would be to study every fraudulent method physical mediums have used, and design controls that make those methods impossible to carry out.

If you place the medium in a room completely unfamiliar to him that has no places for accomplices to enter, and with sitters completely unknown to the medium, that would be a good place to start. Also, as I mentioned earlier, have the medium strip searched and clothed in garments provided by the experimenters. Have the experimenters secure the medium with restraints that are not selected by the medium. Etc. There are lots of things that could be done. Just make sure that the conditions are such that no known method of fraud historically used by mediums can possibly be carried out.

Perhaps others here could make suggestions?

Mike

[Mike D.]

Loss Leader,

Another point: The question of whether the phenomena experienced in a physical medium's seance is genuinely paranormal or is fraudulent, and the question of whether or not some individuals survive death in some form, are two separate questions in my opinion. If a physical medium could be shown to produce phenomena without fraud, that it and of itself would not be evidence that the phenomena was produced by spirits of the dead. Once the genuineness of the phenomena was established, a whole new protocol would have to be devised to try to determine the origin of the phenomena.

Mike

[DrMatt]

Somebody recently explained to me that "pareidolia" is made up of "para-" and "eidolia". The second half, meaning "picture", is related to the word "idol", and the first half supposedly means "false". Now, that's an interesting way of interpretting "para-" in "parapsychology".

[DrMatt]

Loss Leader,

Another point: The question of whether the phenomena experienced in a physical medium's seance is genuinely paranormal or is fraudulent, and the question of whether or not some individuals survive death in some form, are two separate questions in my opinion. If a physical medium could be shown to produce phenomena without fraud, that it and of itself would not be evidence that the phenomena was produced by spirits of the dead. Once the genuineness of the phenomena was established, a whole new protocol would have to be devised to try to determine the origin of the phenomena.

Mike

This is quite correct: one first establishes the phenomena and only THEN theorizes their cause, and only THEN sets out to test the theory. Doing it any other way is cart-before-horse, exactly as dowsers and others do it.

[Loss Leader]

Thanks for the thoughts. I doubt Victor or his medium would accept any of those controls. He seems intent on creating a situation with the appearance of control but remaining blind to certain obvious avenues of fraud.

[Mike D.]

Thanks for the thoughts. I doubt Victor or his medium would accept any of those controls. He seems intent on creating a situation with the appearance of control but remaining blind to certain obvious avenues of fraud.

Loss Leader,

It seems so contradictory that a researcher might fervently believe above all things that scientific proof of some paranormal phenomenon is possible and that the reality of such phenomena should be universally accepted, and at the same time refuse to implement simple controls that could potentially resolve the situation, without ambiguity, once and for all, one way or the other. True, a researcher who is a believer risks being confronted by evidence that would lead to a loss of his belief, but on the other hand, if his well-controlled experiments were successful and could be replicated, they could lead to a true revolution in both science and human culture -- the very thing that the researcher claims to want to see happen.

Mike

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader,

It seems so contradictory that a researcher might fervently believe above all things that scientific proof of some paranormal phenomenon is possible and that the reality of such phenomena should be universally accepted, and at the same time refuse to implement simple controls that could potentially resolve the situation, without ambiguity, once and for all, one way or the other. True, a researcher who is a believer risks being confronted by evidence that would lead to a loss of his belief, but on the other hand, if his well-controlled experiments were successful and could be replicated, they could lead to a true revolution in both science and human culture -- the very thing that the researcher claims to want to see happen.

Mike


I agree with you. We'll have to find someone better versed in psychology to explain to us why Zammit and Sheldrake and the like go out of their way to do what they do.

[Zep]

I thought I just did that in my last post...and I'm no psychologist!

[Mike D.]

Victor Zammit reports that a Swedish Psi investigator travelled to Australia to attend a David Thompson seance. Zammit says that the investigator witnessed the controls employed at the seance and also witnessed the photographing of ectoplasm in red light.

www.victorzammit.com

[Mike D.]

Loss Leader,

I wonder, if you were to travel to Australia, would you be welcome to attend one of the Thompson seances? Has Victor ever issued an invitation?

Mike

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader,

I wonder, if you were to travel to Australia, would you be welcome to attend one of the Thompson seances? Has Victor ever issued an invitation?

Mike

He's never issued such an invitation in such blunt words. He has in the past alluded to the fact that it is very important for people in the circle to believe and to honestly want to invoke the spirits, so perhaps I might not be welcome. On the other hand, they have also taken to tying themselves down quite tightly (supposedly to prevent cheating) so perhaps, knowing that I couldn't really interfere, he might allow it.

ETA: Though you must trust me when I say that if I spent the time and money to travel 12,000 miles to Australia, sitting in the dark with a bunch of woo-woos would not be high on my activity list.

[Mike D.]

Loss Leader,

In reading Victor's account of last night's seance, he made a point of saying that the controls against fraud had been implemented in accord with "strictist scientific methodology," and then went on to describe the controls. I get the feeling he might be attempting to reply to some of the criticisms of the controls that have been raised.

Mike

www.victorzammit.com

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader,

In reading Victor's account of last night's seance, he made a point of saying that the controls against fraud had been implemented in accord with "strictist scientific methodology," and then went on to describe the controls. I get the feeling he might be attempting to reply to some of the criticisms of the controls that have been raised.

Mike

www.victorzammit.com


It reminds me of those boxes the magicians stick swords through. It looks like the lady should be skewered but if you look inside you see that there is just enough room for her to position herself around those swords. Victor and his crew just need enough laxity of control to allow for cheating. From the outside, that might not seem like much at all.

[Mike D.]

Novelist Michael Prescott has today posted on his blog a critique of Victor Zammit's accounts of the latest David Thompson seances:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/

[Mike D.]

The group of sitters who meet regularly with David Thompson for seances now has its own website. Here is the link:

http://www.silvercordcircle.com/

I noticed on the site that they are saying that a new subatomic particle will soon be revealed. I didn't listen to the message, but the site says that Sir Issac Newton will reveal the "formula" for the particle (presumably through the mediumship of David Thompson?). There have been claims in the past of communications through mediums from deceased scientists, but I can't think of any such communications that have made any significant impact on living scientists or on contemporary science. I would think that there would be an impact if deceased scientists were actually communicating. If anyone knows of any claims along these lines that they feel are truly convincing, please feel free to post them.