Leslie Flint

Never found to be fraudulent and was the most scientifically observed and studied PM in history.

Here with an ectoplasmic larynx or voice box.

[Image: LF-ectoplasm.jpg]
There are several hundred gigabytes of Flint recordings, pics, transcripts, etc, here is one.

Arthur Conan Doyle

Best with headphones, they were using dated reel-to-reel tech.

Never found to be fraudulent and was the most scientifically observed and studied PM in history.

Here with an ectoplasmic larynx or voice box.

[Image: LF-ectoplasm.jpg]
There are several hundred gigabytes of Flint recordings, pics, transcripts, etc, here is one.

Arthur Conan Doyle

Best with headphones, they were using dated reel-to-reel tech.

That is incorrect.

On 7 May 1948 the psychologist Donlald J. West attended a seance  at Flint's home. West examined the cabinet before the séance and personally attached a tape to Flint's mouth. After the séance he examined the tape covering Flint's mouth and it was no longer in line with the indelible marking that he had made. West believed that Flint had removed the tape during the séance and cheated. West asked Flint for further testing but Flint refused.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Flint

Most scientifically observed medium ever? Not a chance.

I don't think you're right I'm afraid. It seems West conceded that it was likely he hadn't applied the plaster to Flint's mouth sufficiently tightly. Nevertheless West was right to point out that the criteria for his test weren't met and that as a result the test wasn't conclusive. I don't recall West ever saying Flint was a fraud. In fact, West wanted to re-test Flint but Flint (perhaps understandably) took the huff and told him he wasn't interested. Later in life Flint admitted he wished he hadn't taken offence and had let West have another go.

Wikipedia? Really? I'm starting to form a view that you're lazy not really a sceptic at all, more cynical.

That is incorrect.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Flint

Most scientifically observed medium ever? Not a chance.

Just out of curiosity, I looked at Wikipedia's source for that statement, and it doesn't actually say "West believed that Flint had removed the tape during the séance and cheated."

It says: "It suggested, he [West] said, that the tape had been removed and reapplied. He accepted partial responsibility, suggesting that perhaps his methods had not been stringent enough. On the face of the observations, however, he had come to the conclusion that the results were without value."
https://books.google.com/books?id=zYgxL5pmPlsC

Unfortunately anyone can edit Wikipedia, so it's not a reliable source.

I don't think you're right I'm afraid. It seems West conceded that it was likely he hadn't applied the plaster to Flint's mouth sufficiently tightly. Nevertheless West was right to point out that the criteria for his test weren't met and that as a result the test wasn't conclusive. I don't recall West ever saying Flint was a fraud. In fact, West wanted to re-test Flint but Flint (perhaps understandably)  took the huff and told him he wasn't interested. Later in life Flint admitted he wished he hadn't taken offence and hadnlad West have another go.

Wikipedia? Really? I'm starting to form a view that you're not really sceptical at all, more cynical.

Do you have a link to the SPR paper on Flint by West? Do you know the primary source for West's statements on Flint?

Update: See my comment below. Yes Wikipedia is usually reliable because the content is well sourced. But sure, mistakes do sometimes happen.

Just out of curiosity, I looked at Wikipedia's source for that statement, and it doesn't actually say "West believed that Flint had removed the tape during the séance and cheated."

It says: "It suggested, he [West] said, that the tape had been removed and reapplied. He accepted partial responsibility, suggesting that perhaps his methods had not been stringent enough. On the face of the observations, however, he had come to the conclusion that the results were without value."
https://books.google.com/books?id=zYgxL5pmPlsC

Unfortunately anyone can edit Wikipedia, so it's not a reliable source.

Wikipedia is a reliable source most of the time, all content is usually checked and completely factual. It is against the rules to add original research. Some articles get very little traffic so have not been properly reviewed and do contain mistakes. I will get a moderator to correct the mistake on that article. Good find.

On the Wikipedia article for Leslie Flint there is also a book by Melvin Harris which dismisses the medium as a likely fraud (comparing his mediumship to William Roy).

Researcher Melvin Harris examined the tapes of Flint's direct-voice mediumship and wrote "I have to conclude that his spirits are awfully mixed up. His Valentino speaks with a stage French accent – shades of Charles Boyer – while his George Bernard Shaw sounds like an irascible English colonel, with no trace of his precise and memorable soft Irish brogue." Harris believed Flint to be a fraud and compared his mediumship to the fraudulent medium William Roy.

The 'voice box' on his shoulder was also suspected of being cheesecloth:

The photograph depicting the ectoplasm "voice-box" on the shoulder of Flint looked like it was made from cheesecloth and Mary Roach humorously described it as the "aftermath of a cafeteria food fight".

Wikipedia is a reliable source most of the time, all content is usually checked and completely factual. 

I once read in Wikipedia that said Jesus was a Pleiadian with no sexual organs.


I immediately believed since, by gosh, it was in interview. On Wikipedia. Yes.

I once read in Wikipedia that said Jesus was a Pleiadian with no sexual organs.


I immediately believed since, by gosh, it was in interview. On Wikipedia. Yes.

Wikipedia is the most vandalized online encyclopedia in the world. Sure, a lot of nonsense will be put on there. But it is always removed shortly after by moderators and the vandals get banned. Just because one article you read might have been terrible does not mean they all are!

A ran a search for Leslie Flint and skepticism online, here are some skeptical comments from Jon Donnis:

I have seen all of his claims and NOTHING he did was controlled.
SO he was gagged, so what, someone else could have done the tricks, the problem is we have no way of knowing as THE BLOODY LIGHTS WERE OFF.

Why wasnt everyone in the room gagged and tied down?

The simplest way he could have proven what he did was real was use a camera with infra red recording.

Instead he came up with elaborate systems to con the idiots into believing he had no way of committing the fraud.

They put all of their attention on him, and ignored his helpers, who were probably doing the tricks all along.

Seriously if you went to see Paul Daniels do a magic show and he said
"Now I will make this bunny disappear, but i am gonna do it in the dark and you will just have to take my word for it"

would ANYONE be impressed?
Of course not

Yet the worlds most stupid and gullible people, or spiritualists as they are known, took it all on face value, and because they didnt have the brainpower to see how bloody obvious the fakery was, they went along with it, concocting amazing stories of what they would see and experience.

The ONLY way to eliminate fraud is for them to do it in the light and let a magician watch. Simple as that.

FACT: 100% of seances that included night vision recording showed fraud. No exceptions, thats why they dont let anyone film it.

Seriously you would have to have the mind of a 3 year old to fall for such obviously faked party tricks

Read more: http://moh2005.proboards.com/thread/6691/leslie-flint#ixzz4rer3WC1t

(my bold).

Important point: Flint only performed in the dark. There are no infra red camera recordings of his seances.

I have no reason to believe he was scientifically investigated. Serious lack of controls! Why not leave the lights on?