Is physical mediumship fraudulent?

Hm. Well all those currently saying they practice physical mediumship have the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of what they're saying, to recognised authorities, in controlled conditions. Let's see it. Until then their words don't carry much weight for me, neither do imprecise statements from people whose bona fides cannot be verified.

Yeah I know a lot of those so-called "recognized authorities" they can go screw themselves as far as I am concerned. Most of them have never sat a PM seance but they have expert opinions on them, especially the modern PMs who won't have them in seance anyway.

Life is tough on the absurd.

Jkmac the reason I am citing old pictures is because physical mediumship is really a historical matter. A thing of the past. Most physical mediums had stopped operating by the late 1940s. The majority of physical mediums were operating around 1880-1940.

It might be more accurate to say investigation into mediumship is historical; as you've pointed out, groups like the SPR exposed fraud during the time you quoted here, and focused their energies on other areas of investigation. The Scole Report is the most notable effort to critically examine the phenomena in recent memory - and, sure enough, it took criticism from within the SPR.

It might be more accurate to say investigation into mediumship is historical; as you've pointed out, groups like the SPR exposed fraud during the time you quoted here, and focused their energies on other areas of investigation. The Scole Report is the most notable effort to critically examine the phenomena in recent memory - and, sure enough, it took criticism from within the SPR.

Robin Foy has begun to "sit the chair" as a newly developing physical medium at 70+ yoa. Getting simple phenomena.

Scole required criticism i.e. critical review. It was one of the first mediumship events that embraced ET communication. IMO, the fear inside the SPR was driven by this bias against the realization that many ETs who came through.

[Ninshub]

Scott is going on about Warren Caylor ("water to wine" inference; Caylor puts a bowl of water below is chair b/c spirit told him they wanted to experiment making this change), note how he goes on about "PM isn't what he learned, what he thinks it should be.

He needs to grow up, this regurgitation is tied directly to Gary Mannion's fraud and he paints a broad brush over PM, a highly biased one.

Milligan is the only modern PM (is he?) that refuses to sit with other PMs. Muegge has, Caylor has, Thompson has. heh. Glass houses...

Caylor has his own sticky thread on the SpiritualismLink forum (in the phys med section). Is it true that he and Thompson "don't respond appropriately to questions about their mediumship", and if so why? I've got no bone to pick here with anybody, just curious. From a cursory look, all I can see is these 3 PMs are very controversial, and from reading the SL forum you'd come away thinking you'd be best be wary of them. I'm not saying I therefore believe this - I just see this is a whole world unto itself, and I admire those like Pssst who attend (many, many) séances and do their own observations. At the same time, I can't ignore those, who, like on that forum, seem to have knowledge about the history and practice of mediumship and physical mediumship, who bemoan current trends. I'm left feeling how very small my knowledge is of this field, and how I wish it would be bigger.

Unfortunately I tend to be more of a generalist than a specialist in my interests, so therefore always feel like a jack of all trades, master of none...

Unfortunately I tend to be more of a generalist than a specialist in my interests, so therefore always feel like a jack of all trades, master of none...

In some ways that's not a bad thing. The field is so broad and others who take a more detailed interest can always chip in.

Puts me in mind of something I read once about specialisation: we all start off as generalists, as we specialise we gradually know more and more about less and less until eventually we know absolutely everything about nothing (expletive deleted).

In some ways that's not a bad thing. The field is so broad and others who take a more detailed interest can always chip in.

Puts me in mind of something I read once about specialisation: we all start off as generalists, as we specialise we gradually know more and more about less and less until eventually we know absolutely everything about nothing (expletive deleted).

Kenneth Williams put it quite well:

Kenneth Williams put it quite well:

Haha thank you for that, Kenneth was brilliant. Hopefully he still is somewhere

Haha thank you for that, Kenneth was brilliant. Hopefully he still is somewhere

If I remember correctly, there was a medium who claimed to be in touch with him, though I don't think it was a physical medium.

If I remember correctly, there was a medium who claimed to be in touch with him, though I don't think it was a physical medium.

See: Comedian Camps It Up From The Beyond

It depends upon the level of expertise of the observer. I sat once with Gary Mannion, promised never to return. Bad ju-ju. Several ppl could see that light from iridescent objects would occasionally be blocked. Mannion's cable ties were applied to his mid-forearm not wrists leaving slack to remove his arms from. And on and on and on.

Note the left side of this night vision camera movie, Mannion has slipped his cable ties (which were applied by an associate not a sitter control), lifts his tent-cabinet, proceeds to pick up the trumpet...

Gary Mannion - Fraud

This is pitiful and it is exactly what reasonable people think is going on. 

Pssst- I know you have said that these people "don't care if you believe" and you know what? They should! 

If they have any objective at all, I would assume it is to demonstrate the actual nature of our reality. If the average person is to take them seriously they need to take steps to demonstrate legitimacy.

After-all,,, why have your mouth taped and your arms tied, but then refuse to be in the open? And If you MUST be behind a curtain for some reason, how about placing a camera such that you can be viewed at all times,and then allow anyone, after the session, to see, and perhaps make a copy of the video? You couldn't do this is 1925, but you can now...

They can't have it both ways: saying "look, my hands are tied to prove I am legit", ,,, but now I need to hide for a while where you can't see me. 'Trust me, I'm not doing anything "funny" '. 

And OK the lighting must be very low,,, but I'm getting the feeling that low light photography does work and is not a danger to them... So why not use it? Because it will expose too much?

It all stinks. And no wonder the vast majority of people think this is bullshit.

I'm especially saying this to you because you have a lot of experience in these matters and with these people, and maybe you could have some sway with them. 

They should want to be considered legitimate,,,  and they should relish the chance to demonstrate that fact to the average person (they will never provide enough proof for an extreme skeptic,, but who cares?)

OTOH- maybe they feel there's enough people out there who are on the fence to be a good source of income?