(2017-09-05, 09:31 PM)Leuders Wrote: [ -> ]Graeme Donald. (2009). Loose Cannons: 101 Things They Never Told You About Military History. Osprey Publishing. p. 48.
9,000 people knew about the sinking. Duncan held her séances around the docks where the families of sailors lived. It was hardly 'secret' information.
It's actually a bit difficult to make sense of the Wikipedia version of these events. The article on Helen Duncan has her first announcing the sinking of the Barham in November 1941 (citing Simeon Edmunds, "Spiritualism: A Critical Survey"). It then quotes Graeme Donald as above, with 9,000 being his estimate of the number of family members who would have known of the sinking, after the next of kin of the 861 victims were told in confidence.
But the article on the HMS Barham says the next of kin weren't informed for "several weeks" after the sinking, on 25 November. Therefore not in November, and not in time for Helen Duncan's first reported announcement.
But perhaps not everything that Wikipedia says can be relied on.
Leuders, I have deleted several of your posts in this thread.
1st) We have decided for the moment that it is inappropriate to post the sort of accusations you were making, even if they are already online.
2nd) You are going into the topic of Helen Duncan and other spiritualists, whereas this thread's topic is Leslie Flint. It should be obvious by the forum rules, concerning the ECP Forum, that Skeptics, especially ideologically-bound ones (not open-minded to psi), should be especially restrained when posting here, and should keep themselves to the specific case brought up in this thread, bringing arguments to discuss the case neutrally, and not spreading any pseudoskeptic propaganda either.
You should know the rules by now, you have had several warnings. You are making us reconsider the presence of Skeptics in the ECP forum, which we did not want to do, and we will not allow your presence here to be the deciding factor.
3rd) It has also been brought to our attention that you have been sending forum members unwanted emails concerning a topic that you had already mentioned to me in PM, and to which I had told you what the forum's position was. Please now generally restrain yourself considerably, because you are on very thin ice here.
I very much appreciate the patience shown by those involved in moderation.
Thank you.
(2017-09-05, 10:36 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]It's actually a bit difficult to make sense of the Wikipedia version of these events. The article on Helen Duncan has her first announcing the sinking of the Barham in November 1941 (citing Simeon Edmunds, "Spiritualism: A Critical Survey"). It then quotes Graeme Donald as above, with 9,000 being his estimate of the number of family members who would have known of the sinking, after the next of kin of the 861 victims were told in confidence.
But the article on the HMS Barham says the next of kin weren't informed for "several weeks" after the sinking, on 25 November. Therefore not in November, and not in time for Helen Duncan's first reported announcement.
But perhaps not everything that Wikipedia says can be relied on.
Sorry to have added to the digression on Helen Duncan. If I could just add a clarification, it's fair to point out that according to other sources the seance was in December 1941, not November 1941.
(2017-09-06, 08:20 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry to have added to the digression on Helen Duncan. If I could just add a clarification, it's fair to point out that according to other sources the seance was in December 1941, not November 1941.
Mia culpa- For those who didn't notice, or have forgotten- I inserted Helen Duncan into the conversation.
Just for the record: I did so not out of interest in discussing her, but as an off hand example of the obvious bias of Wiki. I needed to pick something having to do with psi and this was fresh on my mind based on current PM research.
There, now I feel better, with a clearer conscious (whatever that might be) ...
(2017-09-06, 10:34 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]There, now I feel better, with a clearer conscious (whatever that might be) ...
It could be a misspelling of "clearer conscience", I suppose
(2017-09-06, 11:22 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]It could be a misspelling of "clearer conscience", I suppose
My (possibly unsuccessful) attempt of a play on words...
(2017-09-06, 02:15 AM)Oleo Wrote: [ -> ]I very much appreciate the patience shown by those involved in moderation.
Thank you.
Agreed. I find the role Leuders is playing to be quite valuable. My biggest, single fear is of the proverbial echo chamber.
Wasn't there an incident where a bulb of an IR camera or lamp which blew at a public demo.
Then the voices increased in amplitude - showing that the effect of light had a debilitating effect on the phenomena. Without Flint's knowledge.
It's in Flint's autobiography which I can't find at the moment. for better details.
I have a recording of a lecture given by George Cranley - on the mediumship of Leslie Flint. It has a few of the voices he personally recorded during his visits.
It was recorded during a week at Stansted Hall 1993. Course by The Noahs Ark Society for physical mediumship.
Since the NAS is no longer, I don't think it would violate any copyright ?
It was on cassette, but i made an mp3 impression, due to the wonders of technology.
I was in the audience that day.
(2017-09-06, 06:54 PM)Mazda Wrote: [ -> ]Wasn't there an incident where a bulb of an IR camera or lamp which blew at a public demo.
Then the voices increased in amplitude - showing that the effect of light had a debilitating effect on the phenomena. Without Flint's knowledge.
It's in Flint's autobiography which I can't find at the moment. for better details.
I have a recording of a lecture given by George Cranley - on the mediumship of Leslie Flint. It has a few of the voices he personally recorded during his visits.
It was recorded during a week at Stansted Hall 1993. Course by The Noahs Ark Society for physical mediumship.
Since the NAS is no longer, I don't think it would violate any copyright ?
It was on cassette, but i made an mp3 impression, due to the wonders of technology.
I was in the audience that day.
That thing about the light bulb is interesting,, not sure what it demonstrates though.. Is the implication that if Flint was just talking, the bulb would have had no effect?