evidence

View previous topic View next topic Go down

evidence

Post by mac on Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:55 pm

Deb wrote:
•         William and yourself said in the workshop that the soul does not enter the body until 1st breath, yet when the boy in spirit was not claimed it was then stated it was a miscarriage - the students have been trained on other occasions that miscarriage cannot communicate as of course there is no evidence.

I realise your questions were for DT's attention but I want to respond out of personal interest.  It may be of general interest too. Purely as a layperson.  

I accept that William (whoever he actually is) and DT had suggested/taught what's claimed in the opening section of the first sentence.  What I can't fathom, however, is why such suggestions would be considered authoritative, especially the closing section of the paragraph.  I'd be horrified to hear those details given as 'training' for students.  Miscarriage, stillbirth and neo-natal death are common situations that need more sympathetic consideration and guidance.

The suggestion that an individual who had passed as a result of miscarriage would be unable to communicate is flawed.  Yes miscarriage can occur at a very early stage of pregnancy and an entity that didn't develop very far might well feel no connection to its would-be mother.  But a baby lost at a later stage in its development is altogether different because it would have had a longer association with her/his mother.  I do not for one moment accept the premise that a baby becomes a spiritually-complete individual only after its first breath!  Of course if the individual tried communicating with its would-be family details of identity would be exceedingly hard to establish but not impossible.  But mediumship can't necessarily provide good evidence even when dealing with adults.



Deb wrote:•         Upon research, the ‘evidence’ given to one of the attendees from her ‘father’ in spirit cannot be verified by any members of the family, including her mother and matters spoken of ie: a particular photo etc are not known to exist.  This leads that particular attendee to question if it was actually her father.  I have also attached her letter.

As a point of general interest concerning the above and again from a layperson's perspective.

I have often suggested to seekers that some of the most persuasive evidence they might receive about the identity of a communicator is when a medium provides details that aren't recognised but later are researched and found to be accurate.  It minimises the possibility of information having been known to the sitter, obtained from her by the medium and then fed back as communicated details.  

The most upsetting might be when details given by a medium are claimed to be from a communicator connected to the sitter but they are not recognised by the sitter or family members.

I realise that mediumship isn't an exact and predictable event but if it's not reasonably dependable then it has little value.  I would find it especially unacceptable when a large fee had been charged for a sitting.

mac


Back to top Go down

Re: evidence

Post by Deb on Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:11 am

In answer to the first student question posed to David, I too am of the understanding that still born and children passing at late stages of pregnancy can and do communicate as I have had validated evidence in my own readings with mothers of lost children.   They can and have given good evidenc of the changes to their rooms, family, happenings around the family after their passing, what is placed with them in the coffin etc. However, in the course taught here by David it was taught to the students that this does not occur therefore those students that witnessed that particular séance were confused with the information and hence asked the question to be put to David.  Please note I am not present in the room for the whole of the course taught as we are hosting and have to get other matters sorted for their stay / lunch etc.

In the second point the particular person who was in conversation with David prior to the séance about her heritage etc.  Had her 'grandfather' who knew her as a child come through, here is some of her email to me after the séance as this caused some distress with herself and her family................"The spirit communication I had on Sat night was spirit asking for a name that straight away I thought it was my name.  Then you said my name and he said : "yes Bronwyn, where are you dear".  Then he came over to the corner and spoke to me very high in the air.  It was difficult for me to answer and talk loudly as the voice sounded directly above my head.  At first I recognised the voice,  then when he said he was my grandfather, I thought the accent was rather Welsh (my ancestors were Welsh)  and I also thought it sounded like David.  I asked him which grandfather? and he said he died when I was little.  I said I didn't know either of them, they died before I was born.  He went on to say something like..."yes I know dear, I am your "other "grandfather..  I asked him which other grandfather and he said he wouldn't go into detail just now.  I didn't believe him so I really didn't have anything to say."
"I was rather emotional at the end of the séance as I couldn't believe it was true, but thought what if it is.  All my extensive family history research gone in vain:)  I thought there may be a chance there were some family secrets but it was a bit overwhelming to think how I would find out as most of my aunts are deceased and my parents are too.
After the séance I chatted with a few ladies, who seemed genuinely caring that I was a bit upset, still not really knowing what to think of it.  I did feel a bit foolish, like I'd been lead on, but part of me wanted to believe the séance event. As I think lots of people did."

Comments from the other sitter who supposedly had Dad come through with evidence.................................".  He also told me that I had Craig helping me with my mediumship and I said that I did not know a Craig.  He said that I met him when I was little and may not remember him.  He also told me that it was my mother’s cousin or second cousin.  I thought “great” I can call my mum and ask her about Craig and that will be awesome evidence.  I rang my mum on the Sunday after getting home and asked her about her cousin or second cousin.  She said she did not know a Craig.  Knowing that my mum sometimes has memory problems, I contacted my aunty who is my mother’s little sister but she also did not know of any cousin called Craig.  
It has left me feeling confused about the séances and whether it really was my dad at all.  There was a lady on the Saturday night who had her “grandfather” come through.  He told her that he had died when she was little but she had not known her grandfather at all as he passed prior to her being born.  I wondered why someone more known to her would not have come through instead?"

So you can see both sitters contacted me with concerns re the 'evidence' given to them at the séance and both these people were in communication with David prior as they were staying here at the cottage as well as David for the whole time.

Deb


Back to top Go down

Re: evidence

Post by Lis on Sat Oct 15, 2016 5:47 am

The issue about at what point the spirit might 'engage' fully with the birth mother, and their ability, if they pass before full term, is an interesting topic to discuss further at some stage. Personally, from my own experience as a medium, the spirit of such 'unborn' children can and do on occasion communicate, especially when they wish to bring some comfort or resolution of grief and loss to the mother or other close relative.

I want to focus, however, on the issues of 'evidence' in relation to the examples given by Deb. A grandfather, who apparently claims they knew the sitter as a child, when they in fact died before the sitter was born, and a father who offers as evidence of his identity information that is totally incorrect.

How could this happen?

I cannot accept that either the father or grandfather, apparently speaking by 'direct voice' or as in a 'materialised' form, would give such false or incorrect information. Therefore, we have to consider whether either of these alleged communicators were in fact the father or grandfather.

If not, what other explanation might there be. Now, if this were a case of mental mediumship, rather than alleged 'direct voice' or materialisation, we might explain the error as arising from some distortion or misperception on the part of the medium receiving the information from spirit. Undoubtedly this can happen, and may happen rather more often than we would like.

But when it is supposed to be the actual spirit of the father or the grandfather, it is much harder to find a rational and reasonable explanation for the inaccuracies.

Could it be that there were two spirits present, but they were mischievous entities, pretending to be the father or grandfather? If so, how could this be allowed to happen. Surely the medium's spirit team would not allow such deception to go on. But perhaps, the medium's spirit team are not really able to control who from spirit side can come through in séances of this kind. So interlopers can barge in and impersonate relatives.

If so, then we should treat such séances with a great deal of caution.

It is inevitable, however, in such cases that the question of fraud comes to mind. There was no spirit communicating. It is the medium impersonating the father or grandfather.

Perhaps, the medium might argue that since they are in an unconscious state at the time, they have been unaware that they, in fact, have been impersonating the various spirits, and that the incorrect information they have passed on in that unconscious state, is as can happen with the conscious mental medium, a distortion of misperception of information that is coming from the father or grandfather who is present but cannot communicate directly and so uses the medium's body and mind to represent themselves.

It is possible that this could be what's happening, I suppose.

But for me, the most simple explanation, is the obvious one. The medium is quite conscious, and quite aware that they are impersonating the spirits. They are standing in the darkened séance room, pretending to be the father or grandfather, and making generic statements which, though not in the above examples correct, might, in the heightened atmosphere of the séance room, often seem convincing and real, and it is only later that the recipient of these communications realises that they don't stand up to scrutiny.

By then, of course, the séance is over, the opportunity to question is past, and the 'medium' has moved on to the next group of people, somewhere else, safe in the knowledge that most of the time any dissatisfaction in a previous séance will not be passed on to those who will attend future séances.

A fraudulent medium can get away with it for a long time, as we have seen very clearly in the Gary Mannion example.

Lis
Admin


Back to top Go down

Re: evidence

Post by mac on Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:19 am

Deb wrote:In answer to the first student question posed to David, I too am of the understanding that still born and children passing at late stages of pregnancy can and do communicate as I have had validated evidence in my own readings with mothers of lost children.   They can and have given good evidenc of the changes to their rooms, family, happenings around the family after their passing, what is placed with them in the coffin etc.  However, in the course taught here by David it was taught to the students that this does not occur therefore those students that witnessed that particular séance were confused with the information and hence asked the question to be put to David.  Please note I am not present in the room for the whole of the course taught as we are hosting and have to get other matters sorted for their stay / lunch etc.

It is - to say the least - regrettable that students were left with the impression they were. I wasn't there either, of course, so I can't judge whether information wasn't delivered clearly or whether the students simply misunderstood.  I hope member COSC2014 will come back to us to give his take on this particular issue.  For personal reasons I have a particular interest but I feel sure others would also be interested.


Deb wrote:In the second point the particular person who was in conversation with David prior to the séance about her heritage etc.  Had her 'grandfather' who knew her as a child come through, here is some of her email to me after the séance as this caused some distress with herself and her family................"The spirit communication I had on Sat night was spirit asking for a name that straight away I thought it was my name.  Then you said my name and he said : "yes Bronwyn, where are you dear".  Then he came over to the corner and spoke to me very high in the air.  It was difficult for me to answer and talk loudly as the voice sounded directly above my head.  At first I recognised the voice,  then when he said he was my grandfather, I thought the accent was rather Welsh (my ancestors were Welsh)  and I also thought it sounded like David.  I asked ..................... with a few ladies, who seemed genuinely caring that I was a bit upset, still not really knowing what to think of it.  I did feel a bit foolish, like I'd been lead on, but part of me wanted to believe the séance event. As I think lots of people did."

Comments from the other sitter who supposedly had Dad come through with evidence.................................".  He also told me that I had Craig helping me with my mediumship and I said that I did not kn......................  
It has left me feeling confused about the séances and whether it really was my dad at all.  There was a lady on the Saturday night who had her “grandfather” come through.  He told her that he had died when she was little but she had not known her grandfather at all as he passed prior to her being born.  I wondered why someone more known to her would not have come through instead?"

So you can see both sitters contacted me with concerns re the 'evidence' given to them at the séance and both these people were in communication with David prior as they were staying here at the cottage as well as David for the whole time.
 Thank you for sharing the way that your guests explained their personal reactions to what they experienced.  I am both dismayed and heartened.  I'm not a medium but I have tried to help those needing it, those seeking reassurance their loved ones live on.  I'm dismayed to hear accounts such as these but I'm reassured that I'm not wrong to caution seekers over what to expect or to take from mediumship.  I'm also dismayed that more than 30 years on from my own 'awakening' on these matters so little 'in the spooks' seems to have changed for the better or even changed at all.  And to rub salt into the wound, businesses are conducted based on it with, presumably, a good living for those operating such businesses.

 For me that's not the right way to deliver the message of survival.
Crying or Very sad

mac


Back to top Go down

Re: evidence

Post by mac on Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:23 am

Lis wrote:The issue about at what point the spirit might 'engage' fully with the birth mother, and their ability, if they pass before full term, is an interesting topic to discuss further at some stage. Personally, from my own experience as a medium, the spirit of such 'unborn' children can and do on occasion communicate, especially when they wish to bring some comfort or resolution of grief and loss to the mother or other close relative.
 

Something I've experienced personally....



Last edited by mac on Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:18 am; edited 1 time in total

mac


Back to top Go down

Re: evidence

Post by Lis on Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:04 am

Sorry, Mac,

I think I inadvertently disappeared the rest of your post when trying to respond to it. Sad

Lis
Admin


Back to top Go down

Re: evidence

Post by mac on Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:53 am

Re: evidence

Post by mac Today at 2:23 am

   Lis wrote:
  " The issue about at what point the spirit might 'engage' fully with the birth mother, and their ability, if they pass before full term, is an interesting topic to discuss further at some stage. Personally, from my own experience as a medium, the spirit of such 'unborn' children can and do on occasion communicate, especially when they wish to bring some comfort or resolution of grief and loss to the mother or other close relative."



Something I've experienced personally....


quote, Lis  " I want to focus, however, on the issues of 'evidence' in relation to the examples given by Deb. A grandfather, who apparently claims they knew the sitter as a child, when they in fact died before the sitter was born, and a father who offers as evidence of his identity information that is totally incorrect.

   How could this happen?

   I cannot accept that either the father or grandfather, apparently speaking by 'direct voice' or as in a 'materialised' form, would give such false or incorrect information. Therefore, we have to consider whether either of these alleged communicators were in fact the father or grandfather.

   If not, what other explanation might there be. Now, if this were a case of mental mediumship, rather than alleged 'direct voice' or materialisation, we might explain the error as arising from some distortion or misperception on the part of the medium receiving the information from spirit. Undoubtedly this can happen, and may happen rather more often than we would like.

   But when it is supposed to be the actual spirit of the father or the grandfather, it is much harder to find a rational and reasonable explanation for the inaccuracies.

   Could it be that there were two spirits present, but they were mischievous entities, pretending to be the father or grandfather? If so, how could this be allowed to happen. Surely the medium's spirit team would not allow such deception to go on. But perhaps, the medium's spirit team are not really able to control who from spirit side can come through in séances of this kind. So interlopers can barge in and impersonate relatives.

   If so, then we should treat such séances with a great deal of caution."




quite!  As a layperson - but also someone who has personal experience of 'mischief-makers' -  I've cautioned others apparently unaware of, or resistant to any suggestion that there might be, deceivers who masquerade as someone they never were.  Many times I've found that possibility hard to get over to individuals.  But in this world there are many deceivers and, as we've been taught, folk pass over much the same as they were in this world.  Deceivers here who continue to enjoy deceiving.  Even experienced practitioners may be caught off guard. Not so very long ago a certain high-profile group's activities were brought to an untimely end by just such interference.

  quote Lis "It is inevitable, however, in such cases that the question of fraud comes to mind. There was no spirit communicating. It is the medium impersonating the father or grandfather.

   Perhaps, the medium might argue that since they are in an unconscious state at the time, they have been unaware that they, in fact, have been impersonating the various spirits, and that the incorrect information they have passed on in that unconscious state, is as can happen with the conscious mental medium, a distortion of misperception of information that is coming from the father or grandfather who is present but cannot communicate directly and so uses the medium's body and mind to represent themselves.

   It is possible that this could be what's happening, I suppose."




And if we allow that then practitioners with integrity should be asking themselves how dependable their mediumship is.  I struggle because my approach to others is that they are as honest as I hope I am.  I take 'em at face value and expect them to be up front in what they do.  My wife says I am too trusting and she has a point.

  quote Lis  "But for me, the most simple explanation, is the obvious one. The medium is quite conscious, and quite aware that they are impersonating the spirits. They are standing in the darkened séance room, pretending to be the father or grandfather, and making generic statements which, though not in the above examples correct, might, in the heightened atmosphere of the séance room, often seem convincing and real, and it is only later that the recipient of these communications realises that they don't stand up to scrutiny.

   By then, of course, the séance is over, the opportunity to question is past, and the 'medium' has moved on to the next group of people, somewhere else, safe in the knowledge that most of the time any dissatisfaction in a previous séance will not be passed on to those who will attend future séances.

   A fraudulent medium can get away with it for a long time, as we have seen very clearly in the Gary Mannion example."



The above are the conclusions I don't want to reach, Lis, but but know I must consider them.  Given that the results achieved through mediumship of any kind at a public demonstration etc. are uncontrollable, and results are unpredictable, even an experienced medium might have justified concerns about the outcome at an event.  We've discussed the issue of so-called mixed mediumship in the past but even well-intentioned deception is unforgiveable in my book.  Where it's out-and-out cynical deception for gain it's despicable.  

I'd be gutted if I was seen as such an individual but those in such a position likely don't give a damn about what folk think anyway .
Rolling Eyes


Last edited by mac on Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:58 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : re-formatted after re-posting)

mac


Back to top Go down

Re: evidence

Post by mac on Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:54 am

Lis wrote:Sorry, Mac,

I think I inadvertently disappeared the rest of your post when trying to respond to it. Sad

phew!  Luckily I had another page open in my browser with my posting showing so I could copy and paste it.  Just needed to re-format it a little afterwards... Very Happy  

all done! serendipity....  Laughing

mac


Back to top Go down

Re: evidence

Post by Lis on Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:57 am

Thanks Mac, I must have pressed the edit button rather than the quote one! Lucky you could reinstate your post.

Lis
Admin


Back to top Go down

Re: evidence

Post by mac on Sat Oct 15, 2016 2:50 pm

Lis wrote:Thanks Mac, I must have pressed the edit button rather than the quote one! Lucky you could reinstate your post.

I'm glad I just happened to have left the tab open, Lis. It was only because I'd been moving stuff around as I was formatting my replies. Not something I always do. serendipity indeed! Laughing

mac


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum