[steansathtpos]

I don’t believe the distinction between “real contact” and “false contact” is as clear-cut as many New Agers seem to feel. In my view, the answers to the ensuing 4 questions cast a pall of suspicion over ALL channeling. It is not impossible that mediums like Gordon Smith channel deceased souls. For that matter, it is not impossible that the Apollo moon landing was faked in a New Mexico hangar to gain a propganda advantage over the Soviet Union. But mere ESP or clairvoyance seems a more plausible explanation of the best of channeling in view of the evidence cited in my replies to (1)-(4):

(1) What if sitters request contact with fake deceased relatives and the mediums still oblige with a very impressive channeling?

(2) Many seem to imagine that channeled materials unknown to anyone living provide convincing evidence of contact with the dead. But what if a drop-in communicator could provide amazing verifications even involving precognition of the future, and yet, be later proven a fraud?

(3) What if the spirit control of mediums with impressive verifications can be proven to be a fraud? What conclusion would that warrant about other spirit controls whose self-professed identity cannot be verified?

(4) What if it can be shown that the attribution of channeled materials to discarnate friends and relatives reflects a culturally conditioned bias?

Channeling can be significantly called into question on all 4 grounds.

(1) Leonora Piper is one of the most impressive mediums ever. She seemed to have the uncanny ability to channel two entities at the same time, one through automatic writing and the other through entranced speech. Psychologist G. Stanley Hall had a trick up his sleeve when he went for a sitting with her. She was currently using the spirit of Richard Hodgson as her control. Hodgson had formerly investigated her, but had recently died of a massive heart attack. Hall asked Hodgson's spirit to contact Hall’s niece, “Bessie Beals,” so that he might speak with her. Miss Beals was duly introduced and proceeded to communicate with Hall through Mrs. Piper. Actually Bessie Beals did not exist. She was a figment of Hall’s mind. “Hodgson,” in embarrassment tried to wriggle out of the situation, saying that he had been mistaken about the name. He said that the person brought was a Jessie Beals, related to another sitter. In another test, Dr. Samuel Soal visualized incidents with an imaginary friend, John Ferguson. He then went for a sitting with the medium, Blanche Cooper. The incidents he visualized came forth as though communicated by John from beyond death!

(2) At a sitting with medium Blanche Cooper on Jan. 4 ,1922, Dr. Samuel Soal’s deceased brother unexpectedly said, “Sam, I’ve brought someone who knows you.” Then in a very clear, strong, and familiar voice, Gordon Davis began to speak through Cooper. Davis was an old school acquaintance whom Soal believed to have been killed during World War I. Davis seemed to verify this when he said, “My poor wife is my only concern now--and my kiddie.” Soal thought he recognized Davis' tone of voice with its fastidious accent. The communicator used forms of expression that typified the real Gordon Davis' speech (e.g. “old chap”; “confab” instead of “meeting”). Davis spoke of the school they had attended, Rochford, and provided details of their last conversation. He proceeded to refer correctly to persons, places, and events from their school days. At two ensuing sittings on Jan. 9 and 30, 1922, Davis gave a detailed description of his house, its contents, and the arrangement of its contents.

To his great surprise, Soal learned in 1925 that Davis was still alive after all and went to visit him. A great deal of the channeled material about the house proved to be correct. But Davis and his "wife and kiddie” had not moved into the house until over a year after the relevant sitting! Davis' diary showed that during Soal’s sittings he had been seeing real estate clients. Only around the time of the sittings did Davis even inspect this house for the first time. But Davis did not move into the house until a year later. More importantly, the furnishings of the house had not been planned in advance! Yet the details channeled earlier turned out to be correct: a large mirror, lots of paintings, glorious mountain and sea scenes, very big vases with funny saucers, two brass candlesticks, and a black dickie bird. Two of the paintings were only done after the sittings! So much of the material channeled in the later sittings about the house must be ascribed to precognitive telepathy.

Why is channeling not discredited in this way more often? Well, ask yourself how often you are mistakenly informed that your friend has died. Was the medium able to exploit Soal’s mistaken faith in Davis’ death as an aid in the process of reconstructing Davis’ personality and future by precognitive telepathy? Or were the medium (Blanche Cooper) and sitter (Sam Soal) duped by an impersonating spirit?

If you ask what sort of test might favor spirit contact over ESP and clairvoyance as an explanation of channeled material, the answer is the demonstration of a skill lacked by the medium (e. g. xenoglossy). That is, if a channeled entity can respond to questions posed to the medium in a language unknown to that medium, then mere ESP cannot adequately explain this. Research has shown that ESP does not extend to a full-blown new skill. But it must be remembered that xenoglossy is a prime criterion for demonic possession. So the possibility of an impersonating spirit must be taken into account in such cases. My repy to question (3) and (4) are important here.

(3) Some spirit controls seem clearly fraudulent. While Richard Hodgson was still alive, he thoroughly investigated one of Leonore Piper's spirit controls named Phinuit in 1892. The Phinuit persona claimed to be the spirit of a French doctor whose full name was Jean Phinuit Scliville and who had lived in the early 1800s and had practiced medicine in London, France, and Belgium. But he was unable to speak more than a few French phrases, displayed no more knowledge of medicine than the average layman, and had never (according to medical records) attended the medical schools at which he claimed to have studied and practiced. Hodgson initially concluded that Phinuit was just a secondary personality of Mrs. Piper which either erroneously believed itself to be or falsely pretended to be the spirit of a deceased French doctor. But Hodgson later changed his mind and now concluded that some of the material produced in a trance by Mrs. Piper seemd to go beyond what might be obtained by thought transference from the sitters and thus seemed to suggest real contact with the dead. In his words, “Among these (comunicators) are more than half-a-dozen intimate friends of my own, who have produced upon me the impression...that they are the personalities I knew, with characteristic intelligence and emotion, questioning me and conversing with me under difficulties.” It seems doubtful that Hodgson would have changed his mind if he had lived to discover the Gordon Davis case.

(4) Shamans understand their mediumship to put them in contact with spirits and demons as well as with deceased people. In earlier centuries Neoplatonists also practiced trance mediumship, but attributed it to the agency of gods or demons rather than to discarnate humans. Likewise, witches from the 17th and 18th centuries ascribed their channeled material to demons. Perhaps the modern attempt to identify spirit controls with deceased personalities reflects the wishful thinking of modern cultural prejudice. Why is Leonora Piper’s spirit control (Phinuit) lying about his true identity? Why did Sam Soal’s alleged brother lie about bringing Gordon Davis’ spirit through? Or were these people simply deceived?

The examples cited in this thread are summaries derived from David Fontana's book "Is There an Afterlife? A Comprehensive Overview of the Evidence" and John Heaney's book "The Sacred and the Psychic."

Don

[+++Poguru+++]

I have a question or comment: If you ask what sort of test might favor spirit contact over ESP and clairvoyance as an explanation of channeled material, the answer is the demonstration of a skill lacked by the medium (e. g. xenoglossy). That is, if a channeled entity can respond to questions posed to the medium in a language unknown to that medium, then mere ESP cannot adequately explain this. Why? It is my understanding that both spirit communication and ESP involve the transmission of symbols (for example, John Edwards communicates via symbols that he can understand and translate into words that he tells the sitters, and clairvoyant psychics 'see' symbols that they interpret into meanings. When I (who am not exactly clairvoyant, but am learning) want to 'read' someone's mind, I close my eyes and 'see' something, and then interpret. So I don't understand how a medium/esp talent can't hear a question in another language and receive an symbolic impression from the sitter as to what the question is- unless you mean the medium answering in that same language. But mediums don't always channel directly, sometimes (like in the previous example) they relay information. Am I missing something?

Research has shown that ESP does not extend to a full-blown new skill. But it must be remembered that xenoglossy is a prime criterion for demonic possession. So the possibility of an impersonating spirit must be taken into account in such cases. My repy to question (3) and (4) are important here. I don't quite understand this. Do demons speak their own language, making them different from other lifeforms?

[+++Poguru+++]

On #4, it seems to me that there is the possiblility of Astral Projection and/or ESP to show why material that seems channeled can be 'partly true'- A characteristic of the human brain/mind called 'confabulation'- the subconscious doesn't have the capacity to say 'I don't know', because discrimination is a province of the conscious mind- so if you as a medium receive information about something, and is asked where it came from, the subconscious mind will go to it's resources (memory) and pluck a cause for it that matches it's beliefs. The subconscious doesn't know the difference between a memory (past) and a perception (present) so will choose what fits best.
This isn't a lie, only the conscious mind can lie. This is the subconscious providing what it's asked for. A cause.
I'm just saying it doesn't have to be a demon (if we really know what a demon is) it can be the subconscious confab.

[steansathtpos]

C. F.:

Will new research demonstrate the possibility of using ESP to exercise a complex skill? I doubt it. True, ESP might glean a phrase or two in another language from another mind. But my post is referring to extensive question and answer sessions in a language never learned by the medium. In my view, this "skill" is most plausibly explained in terms of communication from another mind. Of course, this other mind need not be demonic as opposed to a mischievous or evil discarnate human who is being channeled in his own language.

Over the centuries, xenoglossy has been isolated as a telltale sign of demonic possession. But one criterion may not be sufficient and there is no substitute for the discernment of an experienced exorcist who has an excellent feel for psychiatric disorders. Other questions must be asked to detect the presence of evil entities: e. g. What is the content of the entity's utterances in another language? Is the victim blaspheming God or Christ in another language? Is the xenoglossy accompanied by an intolerance of holy symbols like a crucifix, Bible or holy water? Until recent decades, the Catholic exorcism ritual was conducted in Latin. If the possessed victim mocked each of the ritual's topics in fluent Latin, that might signify that the entity is demonic. It is unlikely that a discarnate human would communicate in a dead language unless he was a Roman or an evil priest.

Your questions lead directly to two other key questions. (1) What are the distinguishing characteristics of evil as opposed to mischief and psychiatric disorders? (2) How should the term "demon" be understood and used? Some New Agers practice something called Spirit Releasement Therapy for earthbound humans who are trying to possess people. Such therapy might work for trapped or confused earthbound humans, but might actually be dangerous if the entity is demonic. I think I'll start a separate thread on this in the site's section on neg abuse.

As for your last question about the distinction between a deceptive lie and mistakes from the unconscious, the issue is malevolent intent and the verdict must be rendered on a case by case basis. My post just alerts the reader to the need for suspicion.

Don

[usaguedriedax]

C. F.:

Will new research demonstrate the possibility of using ESP to exercise a complex skill? I doubt it. True, ESP might glean a phrase or two in another language from another mind. But my post is referring to extensive question and answer sessions in a language never learned by the medium.

Wouldn't any of this supposition depend on what ESP is? Last I heard there are still almost as many explanations as there are investigators.

In my view, this "skill" is most plausibly explained in terms of communication from another mind. Of course, this other mind need not be demonic as opposed to a mischievous or evil discarnate human who is being channeled in his own language.

Over the centuries, xenoglossy has been isolated as a telltale sign of demonic possession.

By whom has it been isolated? Strangely the gift of Tongues as mentioned in the bible is meant to be a Gift from God. When did this become strictly demonic - or rather, by whose definition? Apart from the speaking & understanding in tongues delivered by the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, the Charismatic movement within the churches will be most dismayed to find out they are practicing demonic rituals.

A number of psychics have managed to come up with sessions in languages not their own & for which there is no evidence of their being trained in it, & many of those were of benefit to the listeners. (Edgar Cayce is probably the most famous) Are you suggesting all his trance communications are demon-generated?

There's also the problem of crediting demons with skills not possessed by those of Light. Surely if demons can provide this skill, so can those on the other side?

But one criterion may not be sufficient and there is no substitute for the discernment of an experienced exorcist who has an excellent feel for psychiatric disorders. Other questions must be asked to detect the presence of evil entities: e. g. What is the content of the entity's utterances in another language? Is the victim blaspheming God or Christ in another language? Is the xenoglossy accompanied by an intolerance of holy symbols like a crucifix, Bible or holy water? Until recent decades, the Catholic exorcism ritual was conducted in Latin. If the possessed victim mocked each of the ritual's topics in fluent Latin, that might signify that the entity is demonic. It is unlikely that a discarnate human would communicate in a dead language unless he was a Roman or an evil priest.

Lot's of if's here, but they all have a common factor - you're testing how evil they are, & this kind of experimentation usually shows prejudice - i.e. looking for proof of a prejudged theory, that talking or understanding another language, ESP, Mediumship are all evil.

Your questions lead directly to two other key questions. (1) What are the distinguishing characteristics of evil as opposed to mischief and psychiatric disorders? (2) How should the term "demon" be understood and used? Some New Agers practice something called Spirit Releasement Therapy for earthbound humans who are trying to possess people. Such therapy might work for trapped or confused earthbound humans, but might actually be dangerous if the entity is demonic. I think I'll start a separate thread on this in the site's section on neg abuse.

I doubt it will be helpful to post your beliefs about demons in a forum dedicated to those suffering from neg attachment.

As for your last question about the distinction between a deceptive lie and mistakes from the unconscious, the issue is malevolent intent and the verdict must be rendered on a case by case basis. My post just alerts the reader to the need for suspicion.
Don

Your post seems to be ignoring any possibility that these things could have any 'good' intent. Almost every sentence pre-supposes the evil behind ESP or mediumship. For an experiment to be scientific, you need to consider both sides of the equation - not only how to prove it's all based on evil, but how to show or disprove the opposite.

Test that presuppose only one sort of result are notorious for ignoring contrary data; anything that doesn't fit the 'view of things' gets lost or deleted. Some scientists have even been caught falsifying data to support their single-viewed ideas.

[steansathtpos]

Journ[e]yman:

"Wouldn't any of this supposition depend on what ESP is? Last I heard there are still almost as many explanations as there are investigators."
__________________________________________________ _____

A gross exaggeration! In any case, only 4 or so theories are taken seriously by most mainstream parapsychologists. For a succinct discussion of the main theories, see John Heaney, 'The Sacred and the Psychic." or, more recently, David Fontana, "Is There an Afterlife: A Comprehensive Overview of the Evidence."

"Apart from the speaking & understanding in tongues delivered by the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, the Charismatic movement within the churches will be most dismayed to find out they are practicing demonic rituals."
__________________________________________________ ________

Duh, you must learn to read and detect suppressed premisses. The Catholic church obviously restricts the xenoglossy criterion to cases in which there chronic debilitating symptoms of POSSESSION. Some of my most potent mystical experiences have been accompanied by speaking in tongues. I have even coached people on how to experience this charism!

"Are you suggesting all his [Cayce's] trance communications are demon-generated"
_________

In this or any research, one must initially strive to know what one doesn't know, why one does not know it, how close one can come to knowing it, and whether more practical questions can be posed to penetrate the mystery. I am no Cayce fan, but am agnostic about the source of his xenoglossy. Cayce himself genuinely wanted to help people. The most impressive case of this kind involved ancient Egyptian and is known as "the Rosemary case." I think channeling can be dangerous, but I presently see no reason to dismiss "the Rosemary case" as demonic.

"I doubt it will be helpful to post your beliefs about demons in a forum dedicated to those suffering from neg attachment."
___________________________________________

Again you ass/u/me. When you do that you make an "ass" of "u" and "me." Read me thread on my family's exoricisms and you'll see that we have been very effective in liberating people from oppressive negs.

"Your post seems to be ignoring any possibility that these things could have any 'good' intent. Almost every sentence pre-supposes the evil behind ESP or mediumship."
__________________________

Nonsense! All my life I have had wonderful experiences of ESP (precognition, clairvoyance, etc.) I have even successfully prophesied materializaions, most recently of 2 long lost rings owned by deceased mothers. You must learn to season you penchant for presumptive bluster with a modicum of patient rigor. It is you who prejudge without even waiting to see how I address the announced two relevant questions on this issue. You haven't even given me the chance to deifine the key terms.

Don

[+++Poguru+++]

Anyway, back to my concern:
It is unlikely that a discarnate human would communicate in a dead language unless he was a Roman or an evil priest. I realize that in the subject of exorcism, there is a presupposition of evil intent, so I won't get into that: My concern is the presupposition that Xenoglossy was indicated to be demonic just on that basis. Once again, the church (or the agency who promulgated these ideas ) are ignoring the possibility of the person having had past lives as a roman (or whatever other language) so ESP can't be completely discounted, once again- and I don't understand why a demon would have a penchant for a specific language, since from what little I know of demonology, their origin may be prehuman, or nonhuman. So right away, if I was confronted with a person possessed which was speaking another language, I would presuppose that the entity is a human of a specific ethnicity, not a demon.

Anyway, I think I know what you're saying- and I do take anything I see in the astral with a grain of salt. (Since I'm not a channeler, I have nothing to say about their intent or source, but I do believe in my own intuition, which I consider a gift from God.)

[steansathtpos]

CF. I will eventually respond to your comments on zenoglossy in my thread on family exorcisms in the neg abuse section. So far I have simply provided several illustrations of why I'm even skeptical of most channeling that has ESP support and, if asked, discourage people from seeking a medium's guidance. 'But now I want ot shift gears and summarize some cases that I suspect might involve genuine contact with the deceased.

On Nov. 28, I was listening to a popular overnight radio program (Coast to Coas) ton which Robert Bruce has sometimes been featured as the guest. The guest was medium Hans King. He traced his channeling ability to general psychic abilities demonstrated at a young age. I was reminded of how often mediums are psychically gifted in ways that suggest their channeling is more likely derived from ESP than from genuine contact with the deceased. I'm more impressed by mediums who otherwise lack any psychic talent. But Hans shared one experience that amazed me, and so, I thought I'd share it as best I can recall the details.

Hans was getting annoyed by constant contacts from his deceased mother. Finally, he mentioned another gifted medium he knew and urged his mother to channel through her instead. Then while attending a convention for mediums, he was approached by a female medium he did not know. She asked him, "Are you Hans?" He replied, "Yes." "Well, your mother has been communicating with me. Really, Hans, you must never order your own mother to stop communicatiing with you!" A chastened Hans reflected on the significance of his mother selecting a stranger to "come through" instead of the medium he suggested. He theorized that his mother might have used this ploy to make the genuineness of her manifestation more convincing to him. But I wonder if this stranger was simply a better fit for his Mom than the medium he suggested. Or was his Mom simply doing this as a signal not to order her around? This episode might still be due to ESP rather than genuine contact. But I consider it one of the more impressive stories of channeling I have encountered in the past year.

Don

[usaguedriedax]

Journ[e]yman:A gross exaggeration! In any case, only 4 or so theories are taken seriously by most mainstream parapsychologists. For a succinct discussion of the main theories, see John Heaney, 'The Sacred and the Psychic." or, more recently, David Fontana, "Is There an Afterlife: A Comprehensive Overview of the Evidence."

David Fontana may have some insights to offer but he bases what he says on what other people have told him & what he has read. I can't find any evidence of his involvement in experimentation of things psi or psychic. While he may be useful for background info, he is hardly an authority.
John Heaney is a catholic priest & as such is neither unbiased nor a reliable source. The church has an ongoing interest in persuading everyone of a particular point of view & their entire foundation rests on convincing everyone they they, & only they, are the path to Truth.

And I don't consider myself a world beater but I can think of more than 4 possibilities for the experiences people have in their lives.

Duh, you must learn to read and detect suppressed premisses

Or perhaps one as erudite as yourself should learn to express them. It's your treatise; why should we do the investigating into things you couldn't be bothered putting in?

The Catholic church obviously restricts the xenoglossy criterion to cases in which there chronic debilitating symptoms of POSSESSION. Some of my most potent mystical experiences have been accompanied by speaking in tongues. I have even coached people on how to experience this charism!

Well it isn't obvious to those who either aren't well-versed catholic scribes or haven't bothered studying the intricacies of a system devoted to defrauding individuals of their right to advancement.

Given that xenoglossy is a made up word (it isn't in any dictionary to which I have access) it isn't really a wonder that I didn't know the church has restrictions on it.

In this or any research, one must initially strive to know what one doesn't know, why one does not know it, how close one can come to knowing it, and whether more practical questions can be posed to penetrate the mystery. I am no Cayce fan, but am agnostic about the source of his xenoglossy. Cayce himself genuinely wanted to help people. The most impressive case of this kind involved ancient Egyptian and is known as "the Rosemary case." I think channeling can be dangerous, but I presently see no reason to dismiss "the Rosemary case" as demonic.

But my whole point is your screed seems to be saying you already know all this is evil & demon based. It is hardly an error of mine if I haven't read your thoughts of what you plan to write or that, because of your use of opaque language, I have been unable to dsicern where you are going with your writing.

The sign of a good mind is not how many unusual, long or obscure words one can use, but rather how concisely one can state the premise & arguments in understandable form. (no matter what your philosophy professor may have told you)

Again you ass/u/me. When you do that you make an "ass" of "u" and "me." Read me thread on my family's exoricisms and you'll see that we have been very effective in liberating people from oppressive negs.

Yes... well I grew up on such stories - I'll believe it when I see it & not before. Too many people have too many reasons for spreading BS stories about what happened. And you brother now denies it all as well? Interesting isn't it?

Nonsense! All my life I have had wonderful experiences of ESP (precognition, clairvoyance, etc.) I have even successfully prophesied materializaions, most recently of 2 long lost rings owned by deceased mothers. You must learn to season you penchant for presumptive bluster with a modicum of patient rigor. It is you who prejudge without even waiting to see how I address the announced two relevant questions on this issue. You haven't even given me the chance to deifine the key terms.

You should learn to stay with discussing the topic & it's merits or otherwise. Turning to personal attack simply makes you look petty & silly.

You show none of this information in your post & I was commenting on your post. To now attack me for failing to somehow know things you haven't said or even implied is a trifle silly of you. Perhaps the first part of my assumption was actually accurate?

PS: Journyman is an avatar name & as such doesn't actually need your correction in spelling.

[steansathtpos]

Journ...yman: Edited by admin.

I just assumed that any poster who mispells his own handle probably satisfies this definition of "journeyman:" def. "any sound, experienced, but not brilliant craftsman or performer (Webster New College Dictionary)." So I decided to keep it simple and provide you easily grasped discussions of ESP theories. Obviously, my post wasn't worded simply enough for you. You reply: "Given that xenoglossy is a made up word (it isn't in any dictionary to which I have access) it isn't really a wonder that I didn't know the church has restrictions on it." You pass yourself off as well read in parapsychology. Xenoglossy is the standard term in the fleld for the phenomenon of speaking an unlearned language, and yet, you were unaware of this.

You handle's implicatlon is confirmed by your simple-minded rejection of Heaney's book simply on the grounds that he us a Jesuit. In fact, contrary to your bigoted preconception, Heaney rejects the notion that "possession cases necessarily involve possession by Satan (p. 40)." Also silly is your trivialization of David Fontana's research on the grounds: "I can't find any evidence of his involvement in experimentation of things psi or psychic." In fact, Fontana has made "significant contributions" to parapsychology on "mediumship, both mental and physical, poltergeists and the Electronic Voice Phenomenon" (quoting Prof. Archie Roy). Among his many distinguished roles, Fontana is the past President and current Vice President of the Society for Psychical Research. He is an expert. You seem to rely on ad hominem attacks and crass assumptions to avoid the hard work of critical engagement.

[Journ...yman:] "I'll believe it when I see it & not before. Too many people have too many reasons for spreading BS stories about what happened. And you brother now denies it all as well?"
______________________

Again, you prove that you can't read. I never said my brother denies the story of his exorcism; on the contrary, he doesn't like to discuss it because the memory of it is so terrifying! Your close-mindedness reminds me of Flat Earthers who reject the Apollo moon landing on the grounds that it must have been faked in a New Mexico hangar.

[Journ...man:] "But my whole point is your screed seems to be saying you already know all this is evil & demon based."
___________________________________________
You seem to be the only reader to come to that conclusion. In fact, my last post explicitly denies it and I have already offered the first of several posts making the case that some channeled material might be genuine. My initial post mainly offers experiments and case studies that call the genuineness of channeled contact with the dead into question. I'm content to offer examples that favor contrary perspectives and let the reader decide. Apparently a New Age Fundamentalist like yourself can tolerate only one perspective. If you really want to pass yourself off as a truth seeker, you need to investigate contrary sides of each question. In the case of possession and exorcism, that means you need to read Malachi Martin's chilling case histories in his magisterial "Hostage to the Devil." You will earn my respect and change my tone if (1) you read that book and discuss it here with me; (2) you actually engage the specifics of the concrete case histories I cite.

Don

[steansathtpos]

HE MEDIUMSHIP OF LEONORA PIPER (1859-1950)

Leonora was initiated into her gift at age 8 while playing in the garden. She suddenly felt a sharp blow on her right ear and heard a prolonged S sound followed by the words, "Aunt Sara not dead but with you still." Terrified, she notified her Mom who noted the exact time. It was soon confirmed that Aunt Sara had died on that day at that time.

As a fully developed medium, she displayed the astounding ability to channel two different discarnate entities at the same time, one entity through automatic writing and the other orally! Her automatic writing was typically scribbled with her eyes closed and her head resting on the table. When she emerged from her trance, she had no recollection of her channeling because, as her spirit control Phinuit explained, she had no access to her brain while out of her body, and so, could store no memories within it. I am hard pressed to dismiss the role of spirits in this channeling, especially in view of how impressive her verifications can be.

For example, consider the 5 years that George Pelham served as her spirit control through both her automatic writing and her entranced voice. A skeptic, George had promised his friend, investigator Richard Hodgson that if he died first and survived, he would try to demonstrate his survival to Hodgson's satisfaction. George allegedly became Leonora's spirit control just 5 weeks after his untimely death. Fontana explains how Hodgson was convinced that Leonore really could channel George:

"During the 5 years concerned he [George] recognized at least 30 of Mrs. Piper's sitters who were known to him in life, never once claimed erroneously to know any of the 120 or so sitters with whom he had been unacquainted, and referred correctly to many other people who were not present but who had been familiar with him. Furthermore, he displayed all the keenness, intelligence, and other [personality] characteristics possessed by George Pelham in life, and convinced a large number of Mrs. Piper's sitters that it really was he. (Fontana 125)."

Still, there is some reason to believe that Leonora did not channel the spirits of the dead, but rather gleaned her impressive information through ESP. Let me offer 4 reasons for my reluctant conclusion:

(1) Leonora was a psychic as well as a medium. She demonstrated the psychic ability to remove the scent from flowers and cause them to wither in a few minutes. She was also adept at psychometry, the paranormal ability to deduce details about both living and dead people simply by holding objects that they once owned.

(2) and (3) are repeated from my first post.
(2) Soon after his death in 1905, Richard Hodgson allegedly served as
Leonora's spirit control. The eminent psychologist, E. Stanley Hall, went for a sitting with her and asked "Hodgson" to contact his niece Bessie Beals. Miss Beals came through Leonora and communicated extensively. But in fact the cunning Hall had made Beals up. When the exposed "Hodgson" was confronted with this ruse, he tried to wriggle out of his embarrassment by claiming that he had been mistaken about the name and that the person he channeled through Leonore was in fact a Jessie Beals who was related to another sitter (Heaney 176). Hall's expose seems particularly significant in light of later proof that Piper's spirit control Phinuit was never the French doctor he professed to be.

(3) "S. G. Soal...visualized incidents with an imaginary friend, John Ferguson. He then went for a sitting with the medium, Blanche Cooper. The incidents he visualized came forth as though communicated from beyond death (Heaney, 176)."

(4) In my view, Leonora's perspective on her own channeling can be an important factor in assessing her ability to contact the dead. The New York Herald quoted her as preferring the ESP theory as the most plausible scientific explanation of her gift: "I do not believe that spirits of the dead have spoken through me when I have been in the trance state...It may be that they have, but I do not affirm it." She would later claim she was misquoted, but admitted, "Spirits of the dead may have controlled me and they may not. I confess that I do not know (Fontana 125)." If not even Leonora is fully convinced, then neither am I.

Don

[usaguedriedax]

I just assumed that any poster who mispells his own handle probably satisfies this definition of "journeyman:" def. "any sound, experienced, but not brilliant craftsman or performer (Webster New College Dictionary)." So I decided to keep it simple and provide you easily grasped discussions of ESP theories. Obviously, my post wasn't worded simply enough for you. You reply: "Given that xenoglossy is a made up word (it isn't in any dictionary to which I have access) it isn't really a wonder that I didn't know the church has restrictions on it."

Wow, someone ate his nasties today. Don't you find nastiness to be corrosive of the soul? Hardly a christian attribute at all.

As for 'assuming' things, perhaps you should read your own quote? Personally I'm not an ass, so that leaves only one target for the epithet.

Believe it or not, your intellect has failed you dismally - there is a perfectly valid reason for my avatar name. So, sorry, but you're wrong...

You pass yourself off as well read in parapsychology. Xenoglossy is the standard term in the fleld for the phenomenon of speaking an unlearned language, and yet, you were unaware of this.

I don't pass myself off as anything nor do I claim any particular knowledge. So you're wrong again... You are the one with the pseudo-intelectual attitude who fires back in anger when someone dares to question you.

You handle's implicatlon is confirmed by your simple-minded rejection of Heaney's book simply on the grounds that he us a Jesuit. In fact, contrary to your bigoted preconception, Heaney rejects the notion that "possession cases necessarily involve possession by Satan (p. 40)." Also silly is your trivialization of David Fontana's research on the grounds: "I can't find any evidence of his involvement in experimentation of things psi or psychic." In fact, Fontana has made "significant contributions" to parapsychology on "mediumship, both mental and physical, poltergeists and the Electronic Voice Phenomenon" (quoting Prof. Archie Roy). Among his many distinguished roles, Fontana is the past President and current Vice President of the Society for Psychical Research. He is an expert. You seem to rely on ad hominem attacks and crass assumptions to avoid the hard work of critical engagement.

You just can't help yourself can you? Such anger at being questioned betrays a very poor control of your emotions. You could have said all of this post without any of the trigger words but you chose not to. That says more about you than it says about me.

Again I point out that any statements by you that contradict the view that the things you were discussing are either faked or evil came AFTER I posted. It does you no good to point out how later posts prove me wrong - they didn't exist when you got so upset at having your dogma questioned.

And it is common among researchers who never go into the field to call each other by glowing terms; when I can't find evidence on the Net of someone actually doing the legwork of experimentation it is quite easy to view them as one who reads the information of those who DO go into the field. Having you claim they are good doesn't actually make them so. It simply means you think they agree with you therefore they must be good. Armchair researchers tend to back each other up whenever they can & rarely contribute anything to the advancement of knowledge - usually they are the roadblocks to it.

And among those who don't fall for the belief trap, it is quite common also to treat with suspicion any 'information' that comes from those who are not only 'believers' but who are within the hierarchy of the game. So I am unlikely to accept the claims of someone with a reason for telling a biased story unless I have substantive evidence to the contrary.

So lighten up & maybe go take a breath of fresh air & try to write some non-abusive posts. Your insecurities are showing.

[steansathtpos]

Journe[y]man:

I use this type of rhetoric against your ilk because it works. It actually generally induces them to respond to my challenge and begin the hard work of critical reassessment. Right now, you are like the boxer who defiantly mouths off at the pre-fight press conference, but refuses to get in the ring. Ha! You have yet to critically engage any of my case histories! I dare you to read Malachi Martin. So far I have met no skeptic who has embraced this challenge and come away unconvinced. You just could be the first! I'm afraid your googling just doen't cut it. Why won't you actually read a book with an alternative perspective and get in the ring for some friendly sparring?

Don

P.S. I'm amused by your avatar excuse.

[steansathtpos]

MORE ON XENOGLOSSY AND CHANNELING:

Ian Stevenson has researched telepathy and offers good evidence that, while one can telepathize words, phrases, ideas, and images, one cannot telepathize a skill. Channeled cases of prolonged xenoglossy require a linguistic skill that cannot be dismissed as ESP. Dolores Jay channeled Gretchen who allegedly lived in Germany over a century ago, though her earthly identity was never verified. Stevenson found that "Gretchen" spoke German intelligibly and gave sensible answers in German to questions posed to her in German. Stevenson thoroughly researched Dolores's life and established to his satisfaction that she had never studied German. Such cases cannot be dismissed as ESP, but it must be remembered that xenoglossy can be a primary symptom of demonic possession. Still, I deem Dolores's gift genuine, not demonic.

THE FAMOUS CROSS-CORRESPONDENCE CASE:

A famous parapsychologist and founders of the Society for Psychical Research all died around 1900: Edmund Gurney, Henry Sidgwick, and Fred Myers. Shortly thereafter various women began to produce scripts through automatic writing and oral channeling which claimed to originate chiefly from Myers and Gurney. Each of the women was generally unacquainted with what the others were channeling. Over a period of 30 years a system of cross-correspondences appeared in the scripts. Scattered allusions to classical myths (e.g. Ovid and Virgil) and to English poets like Browning and Keats) only became coherent when linked with messages from other mediums. It was like a an elaborate jigsaw puzzle which was reminiscent of the style and literary knowledge of the 3 deceased scholars. Tellingly, before his death, Myers had predicted in a book that proof an afterlife would eventually come from a group effort from the other side. I doubt that this phenomenon can be dismissed as ESP. It seems more likely that the deceased Myers organized the fulfilment of his earthly prophecy.

Don

P/S. I rely on the summaries of both John Heaney's and David Fontana's books here.

[invest7manager]

I'm calling a time out here. You are both rather intelligent, but the debate would be a lot more interesting without name calling.

Don, please use Journyman's username the way he prefers it. He knows the dictionary spelling. I'm enjoying your posts, but I have to say that some of the assumptions that Jman came to, I also came to. I'm just guessing here, but you may be suffering from something I suffer from. Everything is perfectly logical and understandable in my head. While in a conversation with my husband (Mr. Height of Logic), it appears that I jump from one topic or conclusion to another without sharing the details of how I got there. It's all there, perfectly organized in my brain. Why can't he understand that? Is he brain dead? Well, after 18 years of marriage, I finally learned that he doesn't read minds. No ESP for him. My point being that sometimes when we know the punchline, we fail to remember that we forgot to let others in on our little secret of how we got there.

Being an unbiased reader (hopefully?), I believe I'm seeing a case of Berserk being so familiar with his material, and planning more posts that explain the previous, but we are seeing the posts as complete in themselves. Therefore, the misunderstanding. As an example, I assumed from one of your earlier posts that you believed the moon landing to be faked. It wasn't until later that I saw you were just using some people's belief in that to prove a point.

Let's all just assume you are both very intelligent and well read. Maybe in different areas, but well read nonetheless. And, leave out the name calling. Please?

[invest7manager]

Back to the subject, I've always been a bit leary of channelers. The question always arises, is the information really coming from the self-proclaimed source or not? For the same reason, I'm usually a bit leary of mediums. I've had readings done and I've heard (in person) some pretty famous channelers. It's fun, it's interesting, sometimes rather amazing, but I never hang my hat on it.

Regarding mediums, I have to say that I've had some readings done that my only conclusion could be that it was my mother and my father who were coming through. Much of the reading could be due to ESP. But, in both cases, information came through that was absolutely not in my head, but it was so dead on with the conclusions. To give an example, I spent a week in a Spiritualist camp in New York. I saw five different semi-well known mediums (no, not tv mediums). They all gave info on my mother and father, mostly because I asked for it. The one reading that really stood out, because it was so out of left field, was from my mother. Notice how I say, "Mother"? We were not close. She didn't abuse me, she was just a very formal and aloof person. Someone you would feel strange calling "Mom". This wasn't just me, my brother and sister also called her "Mother". But, "Dad" was "Dad" or "Daddy".

Growing up, I was Daddy's "Dolly". He adored me. I was the baby of the family, and he spoiled me. My Mother actually told me that she did not want a third child, and was angry the entire 9 months that she carried me. True to form, she would then try to cover up the insult with, "But, sometimes surprises can be rather nice". I never bought into it, and could never figure out why it always felt like she was pushing me away when she was hugging me. In a psychology class, we were told of a study done with gorillas, a baby gorilla was put in a pen with a mock-up of a mother gorilla. It was actually a dummy with milk baby bottles and nipples placed where the real nipples would be. The dummy was also spiked with barbs so that when the baby would nurse, it would have to endure not only not being held, but there were barbs implanted in the dummy. A control was set up in another identical pen with another fake, soft mother gorilla and a live baby. This one had the fake nipples, but not the barbs. The result was that the baby gorilla with the soft mother turned out normal. The baby with the barbed mother went insane. As soon as I read about that study, I thought, "That's exactly how I felt with my mother. There were barbs in her."

Back to the reading. The second to last reading, the medium told me that my mother had been cold to me most of my life. Ok, that could be ESP. Duh! But, what almost tumbled me out of the chair with the AHA!!!.....the medium told me my mother was saying that she had always been jealous of me. Ok, so that could be ESP, and a logical, possible conclusion. Although I'd never actually thought that she was jealous. What convinced me that it really was my mother was when "mother" said she had been jealous of me because I always stood up for myself. NOT because she was jealous of my dad's attention. She said she had spent her entire life being, in her words, "A Stepford Wife". She always did what was expected of her. She put on the pretty face and nice smile while she was slowly dying inside. She saw that when I wanted something, I went for it, no matter the cost. I was brave and fearless of any consequences (her words).

Ok, so how could a medium come up with something that not only was not in my conscious thoughts, ever, but put into perspective and explained every little nuance, every argument, everything that was our relationship. It was like a math problem. You work and work to get the answer, try different methods, they seem like they will get to the answer, and never do. Then, one day, the answer magically appears in your brain, and the problem is solved. AHA!!

So, I'm still skeptical of mediums and channelers. But, this huge thing that had affected me all my life was understood, (and forgiven, by the way) with a couple of sentences from a medium. I leave open the possibility that people do come through from the afterlife through gifted people.

On a funny note, when I asked the last medium if she could speak to my mother, this was what I got..."You've been given enough information this week about me. I'm done talking". True to form, that sounded like my mother.

[steansathtpos]

Tempest,

Your mixed reaction to channeling illustrates a neglected insight. From my experience, every mystical and paranormal phenomenon is obfuscated by a bewildering array of counterfeits. This is true of channeling, OBEs, and NDEs, but also of past life recall, demonic possession, and soeaking in tongues. The trick is how to develop the spiritual discernment that can detect what, if anything, is genuine.

This is dramatically evidenced by dabbling with Ouija boards. A few years ago, some very secular Education professors approached me and asked me what I thought of Ouija boards. I warned that almost everyone I knew who had played with one had eventually received messages from Hell, fallen angels, or demons. Perhaps, these communicators are mostly mischievous spirit impersonators. But the real demonic possession case that inspired the movie 'The Exorcist" bagan with a boy's attempt to contact his late Aunt Harriet through the board. Intially benigh messages soon led to ghastly possession. My professor friends suddenly seemed uncomfortable. They had concealed am important fact from me. They had just been terrorized by such allegedly demonic Ouija board messages at a party. They had imagined that secular types like them were immune to the power of negative suggestion, and so, they expected their messages to be sweetness and light. The neglected important question is this: why not assume that such spirit impersonators are also active during channeling, OBEs, etc.? Still, despite the dangers, Ouija boards, like channeling, can also occasionally be vehicles for genuine ACDs.

Two iminent professors, Willliam James of Harvard and James Hyslop of Columbia promised each other that whoever died first would try to give the survivor evidence of individual life after death. WJ died first and Hyslop waited for months, apparently in vain. But one day, he received a letter from Ireland, a country he had never visited. It was a married couple whose experiments with a Ouija board had bccome dominated by a certain Willian James, who insisted that they contact a Prof. James Hyslop and deliver the message, "Remember the red pyjamas!" At first the couple felt too embarrased to deliver so silly a message. But eventually their curiosity prompted them to track Hyslop down. They were disappointed by his reaction. Hyslop could recall no red pyjamas and dismissed this message as silly fluff. But as time passed, he suddenly recalled that on a trip to Paris he and WJ had arrived ahead of their luggage and had to shop for winter necessities. Looking for sleepware, Hyslop could only find some "really fancy red pyjamas," and WJ teased hiim for days about his loud tastes. Does the Irish couple read the mind of Hyslop, a man unknown to them whom they therefore find difficult to locate? No, to me this seems like a genuine ADC contact.

But why the trivial detail rather than a more spiritually profound message? Perhaps the discarnate WJ realized how easy it is for earthly "recievers" to distort metaphysical claims from the perseptive of their own belief systems. So the bizarre and concrete nature of WJ's message may have been selected because it seemed less vulnerable to distortion.

Tempest, perhaps the medium was able to tap your mother's memory bank without her conscious participation in the communication. I have started a new thread on "ADCs Vs. Moemory Loss" to explore the circumstances under which ADCs might be possible, and yet, severely limited abd rare. You may particularly identify with Phyliis's ADC. So please monitor that thread.

Don

[+++Poguru+++]

Berserk wrote: Tempest, perhaps the medium was able to tap your mother's memory bank without her conscious participation in the communication. Why would the medium have to do that? I guess I don't understand the apparent reluctance to accept that her mother actually did communicate through this particular medium. Am I correct in this interpretation?

[invest7manager]

Achems Razor.

[invest7manager]

Ok, CF just pointed out to me that I misspelled Ockham's Razor. So, shoot me. I don't deserve to live.

Just for the hell of it, I googled it. See:
Ockham's Razor
Occam's Razor
Achem's Razor
Ackham's Razor

And, from "Answers.com":
Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor

Well, at least I know what it means. "Don't look for a Zebra when it is probably a horse." Hehe. That was from the world of medicine and diagnosing disease. Sorry, I'm cracking myself up. I really do know the meaning. Really. REALLY. Still don't believe me? Hey, I saw "Contact".