Helen Duncan

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, Beachcombing's Bizarre History Blog has two sceptical posts on the medium Helen Duncan and her alleged communications about the sinking of British ships during the Second World War:
http://www.strangehistory.net/2018/03/22...ic-speaks/
http://www.strangehistory.net/2018/03/23...incidence/

The below is not sceptical it is cynical...the post was cynicism wrapped in warm pig turds.

"Duncan was particularly famous as a medium for materializations, which should set alarm bells ringing. Indeed, on several occasions she was ‘caught’ in the act of faking aspects of contact with the other side. In the world war she also found herself advising, with these dubious methods, family members who wanted to know whether a loved one was alive or dead. There is a vocal minority that consider Duncan to have been a genuine talent. She may have been, as many mediums, well meaning, but this photograph should dispel the idea that her act was always everything it claimed to be."

Btw, "Dr. Beachcombing" lives in a country that has several materialization and other evidential physical mediums, but he chooses a defenseless, dead Helen Duncan to attack.

The below is not sceptical it is cynical...the post was cynicism wrapped in warm pig turds.

"Duncan was particularly famous as a medium for materializations, which should set alarm bells ringing. Indeed, on several occasions she was ‘caught’ in the act of faking aspects of contact with the other side. In the world war she also found herself advising, with these dubious methods, family members who wanted to know whether a loved one was alive or dead. There is a vocal minority that consider Duncan to have been a genuine talent. She may have been, as many mediums, well meaning, but this photograph should dispel the idea that her act was always everything it claimed to be."

Btw, "Dr. Beachcombing" lives in a country that has several materialization and other evidential physical mediums, but he chooses a defenseless, dead Helen Duncan to attack.

I think it's a bit meaningless to quote that passage without showing people the photograph that the author was referring to:

[Image: duncan-at-work.gif]

The problem is that only 1 in 1,000,000 can look at the picture and come away with the potential realities therein. The other 99%+ make judgments based on the picture, whether those judgments are accurate or not. There is little of value that can de discerned by and for the uninitiated.

The problem is that only 1 in 1,000,000 can look at the picture and come away with the potential realities therein. The other 99%+ make judgments based on the picture, whether those judgments are accurate or not. There is little of value that can de discerned by and for the uninitiated.

Nevertheless, looking at that picture, how can you blame them? I mean, it screams "fake". 

Count me among the uninitiated but my little experience of physical mediumship has left me at the cynical end of sceptical too. That experience convinced me that there is more than a whiff of the theatrical about the business. The last one I attended was alive with talk of "shows" and "performances". We were told to expect visits from show business celebrities such as Louis Armstrong. 

I was so disenchanted with the showbiz clique that formed around the medium and his admirers that I decided not to attend the "show". Instead I waited in the bar until it was over (the event was held at a hotel). My friends mostly confirmed my worst impressions. The room was dark, "helpers" in dark clothes assisted the medium and objects looking suspiciously like plastic toys began to appear and float around the room. Loud music was played and the audience was encouraged to move around while some entity claiming to be Louis Armstrong attempted to grab and dance with some of the women.

Obviously, being open to mediumship in general, I can't say that my experience is typical but I do think there is a kind of expectation of a show that has evolved which seems closely related to the theatre. So Helen Duncan might have been under pressure to perform; to provide a show. I'm just more impressed with verifiable information from mental mediums than floating toys and cheesecloth.

The problem is that only 1 in 1,000,000 can look at the picture and come away with the potential realities therein. The other 99%+ make judgments based on the picture, whether those judgments are accurate or not. There is little of value that can de discerned by and for the uninitiated.

Much as it's nice to hear other viewpoints, I think you have to accept that the theme of this website is a scientific approach to psi. From that point of view, it's very difficult to see the photo as other than evidence of a very crude - in fact an almost contemptuous - fake. I certainly don't think you should criticise people like the author of the blog for drawing that conclusion. Of course it can be argued that there was more to Helen Duncan in particular, or to mediums in general. And that kind of argument would be interesting to read, whether it's a scientific argument or not.

Much as it's nice to hear other viewpoints, I think you have to accept that the theme of this website is a scientific approach to psi. From that point of view, it's very difficult to see the photo as other than evidence of a very crude - in fact an almost contemptuous - fake.

You got all of that from a 50yo+ black n white photo did you? How do you know it is a fake? Because you have a belief system that has set firm boundaries on what materializations are suppose to look like. Are you talking about ecto or photoplasmic properties, btw?

You have little to no idea if what you are looking at is fake - or not - and have no experience in seance from which to build any credible case.

I certainly don't think you should criticise people like the author of the blog for drawing that conclusion. .

[/quote]

I criticize him for the same reason I criticise you with one exception. he has no clue what he is talking about but he is driving home a cynical POV, you're not. 

And please, don't even begin to talk to me about physical mediumship "science" when all you are doing is gazing at old photos and pulling SPR reports primarily about subjects you don't have a working, practical understanding of.

Pssst

Well, as I said, it would be interesting to hear some arguments from you as to why you think Helen Duncan is worthy of interest, or even as to why you think that photo shows a genuine materialisation (if you do think that - I can't tell from what you've said whether you do or not).

Nevertheless, looking at that picture, how can you blame them? I mean, it screams "fake".

Doesn't look either fake or not to me. I have seen much 'worse' - in person - that certainly wasn't fake. 

Count me among the uninitiated but my little experience of physical mediumship has left me at the cynical end of sceptical too. That experience convinced me that there is more than a whiff of the theatrical about the business. The last one I attended was alive with talk of "shows" and "performances". We were told to expect visits from show business celebrities such as Louis Armstrong.

And Michael Jackson and Churchill and on and on and on and on - so what? Who is getting more attention in seance? Billy Boogers or John Lennon? And who is more verifiable? Theatrical? So what? Why not? Physical mediumship isn't supposed to be the same style of evidential animal as mental mediumship. 

I was so disenchanted with the showbiz clique that formed around the medium and his admirers that I decided not to attend the "show".

Who was this? You didn't attend because of the book's cover?

Obviously, being open to mediumship in general, I can't say that my experience is typical but I do think there is a kind of expectation of a show that has evolved which seems closely related to the theatre. So Helen Duncan might have been under pressure to perform; to provide a show. I'm just more impressed with verifiable information from mental mediums than floating toys and cheesecloth.

True there is an expectation of there being demonstrations of all kinds including celebrity spirit. That's the fun of it. I understand your disenchantment with what you were TOLD was a carnivalish atmosphere, do yourself favor.

Next time, forget the drinks and go find out for yourself.

Doesn't look either fake or not to me. I have seen much 'worse' - in person - that certainly wasn't fake. 


And Michael Jackson and Churchill and on and on and on and on - so what? Who is getting more attention in seance? Billy Boogers or John Lennon? And who is more verifiable? Theatrical? So what? Why not? Physical mediumship isn't supposed to be the same style of evidential animal as mental mediumship. 


Who was this? You didn't attend because of the book's cover?


True there is an expectation of there being demonstrations of all kinds including celebrity spirit. That's the fun of it. I understand your disenchantment with what you were TOLD was a carnivalish atmosphere, do yourself favor.

Next time, forget the drinks and go find out for yourself.

I don't remember the medium's name. I've searched and found references to Louis Armstrong connected with mediums David Thompson and Gary Mannion but he was neither of them. He was invited to a Meetup group held in my home town while I lived in England. He spend the whole meeting bragging. I particularly remember his accent because it was so close to mine as I grew up in South Yorkshire. Perhaps I should have felt some kind of kinship because of that but I found him pretty obnoxious. Nevertheless, I paid to attend the show on the recommendation of friends.

Come the night of the "show", he came into the waiting room  and started laying down rules. He would not tolerate questions or interruptions. The audience were expected to participate, to sing loudly when instructed and if Louis Armstrong wanted a dance, then the audience member was expected to dance with him. Anyone who did not wish to follow his rules were advised to not to enter the seance room. I decided that was me so I didn't. One other friend also declined but others went in (I got my entrance fee refunded, she didn't). When they came out the overall impression that I got from them was fakery and a sense of the farcical.

Clearly you think that anything goes is the right approach. I don't. I don't want to be conned or entertained. I want to be impressed by evidence and honesty. I saw none of that with this guy and neither did those who actually took part.

Later: a search of old Meetup discussions reminded me of the guy's name: Chris Howarth.