Leslie Flint

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).

If you look at Melvin Harris's book (which I have in front of me), you'll see no more support for the statement that "Harris believed Flint to be a fraud ..." than Aykroyd's book provides for the statement that "West believed that Flint had ... cheated." Even if Harris had believed Flint was a fraud, he would hardly have said so in his book, which was published when Flint was still living.

You need to be more sceptical about the accuracy of Wikipedia.

If you look at Melvin Harris's book (which I have in front of me), you'll see no more support for the statement that "Harris believed Flint to be a fraud ..." than Aykroyd's book provides for the statement that "West believed that Flint had ... cheated." Even if Harris had believed Flint was a fraud, he would hardly have said so in his book, which was published when Flint was still living.

You need to be more sceptical about the accuracy of Wikipedia.

I also have that book. He compares Flint's mediumship to William Roy's. I think it is quite clear Harris believed Flint was fraudulent. Are you claiming otherwise? Harris was a militant skeptic.

On page 27 of his book Harris says "Are these tests stringent enough? Are there loopholes? The career of medium William Roy may provide some answers".

William Roy a direct-voice medium was a self-confessed fraud. I do not believe Wikipedia has misrepresented Harris, only the Wikipedia sentence "Skeptics have pointed out a number of obvious frauds Flint perpetuated during his career" is inaccurate and should be removed.

I also have that book. He compares Flint's mediumship to William Roy's. I think it is quite clear Harris believed Flint was fraudulent. Are you claiming otherwise? Harris was a militant skeptic.

The point is that - whatever Melvin Harris may or may not have believed - he didn't say in his book that he believed Flint was fraudulent, so you shouldn't try to give people the impression that he did.

That kind of thing gives scepticism a bad name. People who make inaccurate statements are not likely to be trusted.

On page 27 of his book Harris says "Are these tests stringent enough? Are there loopholes? The career of medium William Roy may provide some answers".

The problem is that if you think it's fair to represent that as "[Harris] dismisses the medium [Flint] as a likely fraud", then why should we trust the things you say when we don't have the source in front of us?

The point is that - whatever Melvin Harris may or may not have believed - he didn't say in his book that he believed Flint was fraudulent, so you shouldn't try to give people the impression that he did.

That kind of thing gives scepticism a bad name. People who make inaccurate statements are not likely to be trusted.

I see what you are saying. This statement is actually in Harris's book though. I give the full quote from page 26 it says:

I've listened attentively to his tapes of these voices. Regretfully, I have to conclude that his spirits were 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."

Apart from that, his "visitors" have unaccountably lost all the wisdom and charm they exhibited on earth. Does this mean that plain and inadequate mimicry is at work? Is Mr. Flint deceiving himself? He says not. He points to tests where his mouth has been filled with liquid, his lips have been sealed with adhesive tape and still the voices have rung out. In the United States Mr. Rhinehart has also undergone such a test. Are these tests stringent enough? Are there loopholes? The career of medium William Roy may provide some answers.

Although Harris does not say Flint was fraudulent in those exact words, from the above paragraph the general gist seems to be suspecting fraud.

The problem is that if you think it's fair to represent that as "[Harris] dismisses the medium [Flint] as a likely fraud", then why should we trust the things you say when we don't have the source in front of us?

Based on the paragraph I cited above, I think it is fair to say Harris suspected Flint of fraud.

But dismissing the medium as a likely fraud, is not supported by the text.

For those who are interested here is the fraudulent medium that Harris compared to Leslie Flint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ro...ium)#Fraud

[Ninshub]

I see what you are saying. This statement is actually in Harris's book though. I give the full quote from page 26 it says:



Although Harris does not say Flint was fraudulent in those exact words, from the above paragraph the general gist seems to be suspecting fraud.

It's a question of interpretation of course, but personally I feel "suspecting fraud" is reading a bit into it. There's definitely skepticism, and a statement about Flint possibly deluding himself.

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).



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

clip- looked like it was made from cheesecloth

Listen I don't claim the be an expert on PM, but I am learning fast. 

However- one thing I DO know from my few hours of research, is that disbelievers and believers BOTH say ectoplasm looks like cheese cloth. It's how almost everybody describes it. 

So posting a quote saying it means just about nothing.