Ectoplasm -- again?

[Garvarn]

Yesterday, Swedish TV4 aired yet another episode of "The Unknown", featuring Swedish psychics cleaning ghosts from haunted houses (I think you all know the routine). This time, the self-proclaimed Godmother of Swedish spiritualism, Mrs Iris Hall -- she comes from England -- did the deeds along with her disciple Mr Jörgen Gustavsson.

To my great astonishment, Mrs Hall said that she smelled Ectoplasm! I thought that possesed jello was deserted back in the 19th century when it was discovered that female psychics hid in all holes of the body. Anyway, is it in fashion once again? Maybe some spiritualists are ignorant of the fact that modern men differ in many ways from the Victorian gentlemen. Have you heard any psychics in your country talk about it?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

[Garvarn]

Oh, reading my post, another thought came to mind: if Mrs Hall smelled Ectoplasm -- where was it hidden!?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

[Dr Adequate]

What does ectoplasm smell like?

(Don't tell me if I don't want to know.)

[Ashles]

Oddly enough ectopasm smells like cheesy Quavers.

Scientists can't explain why.

[epepke]

From memory, archie of the articles in the New York Sun starting in 1913 said,

i don't know what this ectoplasm that arthur conan doyle keeps talking about is, but it sounds like great stuff to mend furniture with

[jambo372]

Ectoplasm is meant to smell a bit like ozone.

[Garvarn]

Quote:

Originally posted by jambo372
Ectoplasm is meant to smell a bit like ozone.

You mean it was designed to smell like ozone or "according to sources" it smells like ozone?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

[Azrael 5]

Sounds like a case for Sherlock Holmes

[jambo372]

According to noses it smells like ozone.

[Garvarn]

Quote:

Originally posted by jambo372
According to noses it smells like ozone.

Uhuh, so what exactly is ectoplasm? Where can I find it?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

[jambo372]

It's gunk spirits materialise in - if you want to see it go to see a physical medium.
It can also be the outer layer of a cell's cytoplasm but that's another kettle of fish.

[Garvarn]

Quote:

Originally posted by jambo372
It's gunk spirits materialise in - if you want to see it go to see a physical medium.
It can also be the outer layer of a cell's cytoplasm but that's another kettle of fish.

Ah, I see. So it can be whatever material the physical medium have at hand that day. Cool! Thanks!

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

[Operaider]

It looks like chiffon fabric

It looks ALLOT like chiffon fabric

[Garvarn]

Quote:

Originally posted by Operaider
It looks like chiffon fabric

It looks ALLOT like chiffon fabric

Feels like it too, perhaps?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

[Operaider]

OH! You can't touch the ectoplasm!!!
It could seriously INJURE the psychic!!!

If you grab it, it could cause an internal hemorrhage leading to agonizing death!!!

NEVER TOUCH THE FABRIC ... wait, I mean. NEVER TOUCH THE ECTOPLASM!!!

[Anders]

Quote:

Originally posted by jambo372
Ectoplasm is meant to smell a bit like ozone.

No no, Jambo, it smells like teen spirit, and don't take my word for it.

[Dr Adequate]

It's fun to lose and to pretend!

[Zep]

Helen Duncan, the famous medium, was abel to create ectoplasm in the shape of long-passed relatives! TRUE! See it here in this photo for proof!



Incidentally, Victor Zammit says that Helen Duncan PROVES the afterlife exists. On evidence like this, I can see why he believes that.*


*Because he's a living breathing TWIT!

[jambo372]

Operaider
Touching the ectoplasm CAN injure the medium. Helen duncan alias Victoria Helen McFarlane Duncan seen above died as a result of a police officer doing so.

[Dr Adequate]

Now come on, you know how we do things round here. First we're going to ask you for a source, then we're going to say post hoc ergo propter hoc. Let's assume that this has already happened, draw a line under the whole sordid incident, and move on.

[Open Mind]

Regardless of whether materialization has ever existed or not. …… I think other areas of PSI exist.

As I stated in an earlier topic on materialization, I don't think many, if any, materialization photographs look convincing. I have seen the above Helen Duncan photograph before and I do agree with many sceptics , it looks like a dummy attached in cloth, more than it does an incomplete materialization.

Zep, can you tell me who took that photograph of Helen Duncan, was it one of Harry Price’s photographs? (I’ve always wanted to know who took that photograph)

Helen Duncan life story and case is rather mysterious, not completely clear cut…… largely due to a psychic investigator called Harry Price

Amateur magician Harry Price, achieved a lot of publicity for exposing fraudulent psychics (some cases were hotly disputed by others) … he also originated the cheese cloth regurgitation theory and also spoke against Duncan at her trial helping to get her imprisoned. If Duncan was cheating, she of course deserved to be imprisoned but the bizarre thing is that Harry Price seems to have been committing fraud himself after apparently exposing Duncan for moral like reasons. (Price faked the Ghosts of Borley Rectory? Many people think so) ..Price also lied about his early childhood circumstances…… in other words we must question Harry Price too.

Price’s regurgitation theory is far from perfect, Helen Duncan was also tested swallowing blue dye pills that didn’t show up in a resulting materialization. Duncan was also internally examined by a Price assistant (nothing was found?) probably leading to Price’s theory of Duncan possessing a double stomach, which in turn seems ruled out by a medical examiner witness at her criminal trial

Price’s luminous dye on cheese cloth theory isn’t perfect either, at Duncan’s trial 40+ witnesses declared her genuine, claiming materializations of likeness to close relatives, they stated the ectoplasm was white, bluish or glowing in the only a red lamp source, would a cheese cloth not have glowed pinkish or reddish?

Magician Will Goldston and 3 magician friends at a séance in 1932 said Duncan was producing impressive results that he and 3 other magicians couldn’t explain.

Did Helen Duncan cheat? I still tend to think so (mainly due to photographs) ….but the mass of eyewitness reports of people who were there and became convinced their relatives had appeared and spoke to them at Duncan’s séances entered several hundreds … ....

[Operaider]

Quote:

Originally posted by jambo372
Operaider
Touching the ectoplasm CAN injure the medium. Helen duncan alias Victoria Helen McFarlane Duncan seen above died as a result of a police officer doing so.

Are you serious!!!

Look at that picture

LOOK!!!

that is clearly not ectoplasm!

It's a freaking Doll!!!

[Open Mind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Operaider
Are you serious!!!

Look at that picture

LOOK!!!

that is clearly not ectoplasm!

It's a freaking Doll!!!

I agree, it looks like that to me too (and the garment looks pinned to the wall and door? to hold the whole thing up) ……but this photograph raises more questions than it answers!

She could not a have hoaxed that photograph alone, the séance members, photographer must have been involved in hoax? (Because she couldn’t attach that doll thing to a wall/door with her hands held and she would also need to also remove before séance ends and hide it back inside body) Who took the photograph? Who helped her fake it? Why is the hoax photograph so badly done? Why did they not fake it much better with a more realistic face?

Why it the ectoplasm attached below the blindfold, surely that would looked more realistic coming out of her mouth? Why is the materialization cabinet Helen Duncan always required missing from photograph?

How on earth could such a crude doll, fool so many intelligent people? (including 4 magicians, lawyers , doctors , etc.) ? How could so many, many other people confuse such a dummy looking thing with their dead relatives?

Why did Helen Duncan agree to controlled tests with photographs at all?, How could she have hoped to get away with it with such a crude hoax, if this is all it was?

Materialization mediums claimed to be instantly burned on light, so did she agree to someone setting up an imitation photograph to show what materialization might look like and the photograph was never intended to be used as evidence? (And someone deliberately made a bad photograph?)

Helen Duncan was a ‘trance’ medium, these medium types claimed not to remember anything that happens during or afterwards when in trance. Any chance the photograph was faked without her knowledge? (As some believers have suggested?)

It all doesn't make sense to me, it would be useful to know who took that photograph.

[jambo372]

Operaider
The object in the photograph may look ever so slightly like a doll but as Open mind says - the particular photo in question may have been doctored by Harry price.
A medium can also cheat on one occasion but produce completely genuine phenomena on another eg Eusapia Palladino found materialisation difficult and admitted faking it on a number of occasions but producing real phenomena on others.

[Dragon]

Quote:

Originally posted by jambo372
Operaider
The object in the photograph may look ever so slightly like a doll but as Open mind says - the particular photo in question may have been doctored by Harry price.
A medium can also cheat on one occasion but produce completely genuine phenomena on another eg Eusapia Palladino found materialisation difficult and admitted faking it on a number of occasions but producing real phenomena on others.

Och aye, the noo! Ye have to have salt on yer porridge and nothing under yer kilt!

[Ashles]

Quote:

A medium can also cheat on one occasion but produce completely genuine phenomena on another

I always love that one.
"Hey look - you're cheating!"
"Oh fair enough, I cheated that time but I promise I didn't cheat elsewhere"
"Oh okay I believe you implicitly"

Quote:

The object in the photograph may look ever so slightly like a doll

Ever.
So.
Slightly.
Like.
A.
Doll.

What comes after ROFFLMAO?

[Sanamas]

Open Mind, are you suggesting that because the picture looks so fake it has to be real, because if it were fake it would have been made to look less like a fake?

[Vim Razz]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ashles
What comes after ROFFLMAO?

ROTFLMAOOMGWT*BBQ

[Operaider]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ashles
I always love that one.
"Hey look - you're cheating!"
"Oh fair enough, I cheated that time but I promise I didn't cheat elsewhere"
"Oh okay I believe you implicitly"





Ever.
So.
Slightly.
Like.
A.
Doll.

What comes after ROFFLMAO?

Is it just me, or does the ectoplasm manifestation have a plaid pattern on its .... i guess ectoplasm

[Garvarn]

Quote:

Originally posted by Operaider
Is it just me, or does the ectoplasm manifestation have a plaid pattern on its .... i guess ectoplasm

Uh, isn't that just because the original image was rasterized?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

[Operaider]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
Uh, isn't that just because the original image was rasterized?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

On second look, I see your right
She has the same pattern on her face

[Zep]

Quote:

Originally posted by Open Mind
I agree, it looks like that to me too (and the garment looks pinned to the wall and door? to hold the whole thing up) ……but this photograph raises more questions than it answers!

She could not a have hoaxed that photograph alone, the séance members, photographer must have been involved in hoax? (Because she couldn’t attach that doll thing to a wall/door with her hands held and she would also need to also remove before séance ends and hide it back inside body) Who took the photograph? Who helped her fake it? Why is the hoax photograph so badly done? Why did they not fake it much better with a more realistic face?

Why it the ectoplasm attached below the blindfold, surely that would looked more realistic coming out of her mouth? Why is the materialization cabinet Helen Duncan always required missing from photograph?

How on earth could such a crude doll, fool so many intelligent people? (including 4 magicians, lawyers , doctors , etc.) ? How could so many, many other people confuse such a dummy looking thing with their dead relatives?

Why did Helen Duncan agree to controlled tests with photographs at all?, How could she have hoped to get away with it with such a crude hoax, if this is all it was?

Materialization mediums claimed to be instantly burned on light, so did she agree to someone setting up an imitation photograph to show what materialization might look like and the photograph was never intended to be used as evidence? (And someone deliberately made a bad photograph?)

Helen Duncan was a ‘trance’ medium, these medium types claimed not to remember anything that happens during or afterwards when in trance. Any chance the photograph was faked without her knowledge? (As some believers have suggested?)

It all doesn't make sense to me, it would be useful to know who took that photograph.

Oh dear, you have a bad case of what we call "The Zammits". The symptoms consist largely of trying to shoehorn a size 16 male basketballer's foot into a child's size 2 shoe, and calling it a success if the little toe is all that fits. *sigh*

1) It IS Helen Duncan, unless Victor Zammit and a whole raft of her supporters are lying (which is possible, I suppose, but why about this in particular?).

2) Duncan didn't hoax the photograph, the photographer simply caught her out.

3) It was most likely taken with infra-red film and without a flash. Such film was readily available to the public from about 1910 onwards, IIRC. Note the lack of sharp shadows - fairly typical of slow-speed IR film. It's more likely that a flash camera (using a big reflector and magnesium bulbs) would have been forbidden. However a small pocket camera loaded with IR film could have been smuggled in. Note also that the use of IR film means Duncan was probably not aware that the picture was being taken.

4) Did you notice the door behind the doll? In a pitch-dark room, what do you think the odds are that it is being manipulated by someone behind that door? Including attaching the "ectoplasm" to Duncan's nose for her? It's well within arm's-length reach. Hmmm?

5) In a pitch-dark room, a little radium paint or similar luminescent substance does tend to glow a nice pale and faint blue-green colour. Just like the effect reported by observers, even under warm conditions. Radium paint was used for the luminescent numbers on watches, so it was easily obtainable.

6) In a pitch-dark room, the only way for an unwitting "observer" to find out where the ectoplasm is is by feeling for it. Duncan only had to say it came from her nose (which she could do because her mouth had no "ectoplasm" in it - see the picture), and it would be difficult for the observer to prove otherwise solely by feel.

OR

The observer who "confirmed" the ectoplasm was in on the hoax. In a pitch-dark room, the faintly glowing ectoplasm would just look like it may possibly have come from her nose.

7) Since all the other observers were holding hands in a circle, they obviously took the first observer's word for it. Hence, the statement that they all confirmed it is stretching the truth, at best.

8) Hoaxers like Duncan have been playing on the grief of people who have lost dear ones for millennia. So if they go into a seance expecting to see the face of the dear departed, they will latch onto the slightest inference, and justify and rationalise their observations later.



Now, that's just this photo, and this all looks plainly obvious to anyone who wants to give it more than half a second's thought. All you have to do is be just the slightest bit skeptical.

[Open Mind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sanamas
Open Mind, are you suggesting that because the picture looks so fake it has to be real, because if it were fake it would have been made to look less like a fake?

No, I'm saying that the picture is incongruous with believers explanation and also incongruous with the most common sceptic explanation

I don’t think any believer in materialization can honestly say that this picture looks like anyone’s human relative. Nor do I think what we see in that above photograph was once inside Helen Duncan’s body . Neither of these explanations seems sensible to me

Quote:

Originally posted by Zep
Oh dear, you have a bad case of what we call "The Zammits". The symptoms consist largely of trying to shoehorn a size 16 male basketballer's foot into a child's size 2 shoe, and calling it a success if the little toe is all that fits. *sigh*

Nonsense Where did I say this was real ectoplasm or materialization photograph? I said it looks fake.

Quote:

1) It IS Helen Duncan, unless Victor Zammit and a whole raft of her supporters are lying

All I see is a fat lady with a blindfold on. If we are to judge the case of Helen Duncan on one photograph, I think it is only fair to check the source of the photograph …..that is why I asked if anyone knew who took the photograph, I’d just like to know.

Quote:

2) Duncan didn't hoax the photograph, the photographer simply caught her out.

Again I would rather the photographer confirmed this. The other well known photograph http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/ph...hs/other/1.htm claims she is wearing the blindfold to protect her eyes from flash photography when in a sensitive state. (Yes, I’m skeptical of that explanation too).

Quote:

However a small pocket camera loaded with IR film could have been smuggled in. Note also that the use of IR film means Duncan was probably not aware that the picture was being taken.

Again I’d rather hear the photographer confirm that.

Quote:

3) Did you notice the door behind the doll? In a pitch-dark room, what do you think the odds are that it is being manipulated by someone behind that door? Including attaching the "ectoplasm" to Duncan's nose for her? It's well within arm's-length reach. Hmmm?

Yes, it is usually a curtain, I think it is more likely someone in the séance room is producing the trick, opening a door might produce noise, air currents? And the door looks shut in photograph?

Quote:

4) In a pitch-dark room, a little radium paint or similar luminescent substance does tend to glow a nice pale and faint blue-green colour.

Yes, would that look white in dim red light? The most common report was white glowing, perhaps that was why red light was chosen? We should check out what it looks like in dim red light

Quote:

In a pitch-dark room, the only way for an unwitting "observer" to find out where the ectoplasm is is by feeling for it. Duncan only had to say it came from her nose (which she could do because her mouth had no "ectoplasm" in it - see the picture), and it would be difficult for the observer to prove otherwise solely by feel.

Possibly but I think most of the Duncan séances were in dim red light, not always in a pitch dark room..

Quote:

Hoaxers like Duncan have been playing on the grief of people who have lost dear ones for millennia.

But I don’t think it is fair to put all psychics in that category. Hoaxers do exists for sure in all areas of life. Let us not be hasty in tarnishing everyone with the same brush.

Quote:

Now, that's just this photo, and this all looks plainly obvious to anyone who wants to give it more than half a second's thought. All you have to do is be just the slightest bit skeptical.

Yes I agree, I’m merely providing both sides of the debate. Let’s also be skeptical of Harry Price’s theory, I think you will probably agree all the material in that photograph did not come from inside Helen Duncan’s body. Nor do I think a fat lady with a cheese cloth over her head is impressive or matches the opinion of magician Will Goldston who said ..... ' I personally carried on a conversation with a small female form called Violet. She told me she was eight years of age, and permitted me to feel her hand. Now, there is not, so far as I am aware - and I am a magician of lifelong experience - any system of trickery which can achieve the astounding results which I witnessed that evening with Mrs. Duncan.’

Note Goldston comments are a couple of years later than Price ‘s regurgitation theory, he also says ....... ‘Mrs. Duncan is said to possess a remarkable power of regurgitation; before a sitting she swallows many yards of tightly packed and specially prepared cheese cloth - and rubber gloves. All this material she regurgitates from her stomach during a séance, persuading it, in some manner to simulate human shape. That, with further elaboration, constitutes the persecuting statement.
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/ex...ion/duncan.htm

Edited to add provide above link

[jambo372]

So we're expected to believe that she had all that muslin cloth stuffed in her insides ready to regurgitate - to me that sounds even more paranormal than even genuine materialization, not to mention she was examined thoroughly to make sure this was impossible.

[Zombified]

Quote:

Originally posted by jambo372
So we're expected to believe that she had all that muslin cloth stuffed in her insides ready to regurgitate - to me that sounds even more paranormal than even genuine materialization, not to mention she was examined thoroughly to make sure this was impossible.

So who can perform these materializations today? Surely if it was real then it can be replicated now.

[Zep]

From the site you referenced, Open Mind, the following point:

Quote:

This report, first published in Psychic News in 1932, was written by Will Goldston, the eminent magician, founder of the Magician's Circle and author of more than 40 books on conjuring.

You might care to note that Duncan died in 1956, but was "popular" in the 1930's and 40's. So it is unlikely that the photographer for that particular photograph would be known today.

If you look at the second photograph you linked, please note that the lady on the left of the picture (holding Duncan's right hand) is not "tied down" by the feet. This suggests to me that this person could move freely in darkness if she wanted. Also, the "holding hands" stuff is plainly ridiculous. Who's to say that the same person couldn't have let go of Duncan's hand for some reason? Then there's the proximity to the curtains - note Duncan's head is definitely leaning or even touching the one of the left... Finally, the "baby" being materialised does look awfully like a girl's dolly, doesn't it. So, in summary, it's really a pretty pathetic attempt at convincing any reasonable person that she was adequately constrained in any way and that she is treely-ruly "materialising".

Incidentally, this photograph (a) has a known photographer and date, and (b) is claimed to be and accepted as being Helen Duncan of medium fame.

[Operaider]

Quote:

Originally posted by Open Mind
I don’t think any believer in materialization can honestly say that this picture looks like anyone’s human relative. Nor do I think what we see in that above photograph was once inside Helen Duncan’s body . Neither of these explanations seems sensible to me

And yet people will still believe that it's true. It doesn't matter how obviously ridiculous it may look to us, believers will look past that. Ever hear of the cottingley fairies

Quote:

Yes, it is usually a curtain, I think it is more likely someone in the séance room is producing the trick, opening a door might produce noise, air currents? And the door looks shut in photograph?

noises and air currents are not a problem. In fact they can be a blessing. The participants are listening for any signs of thier dead loved ones, a slight wind in their face can be taken as a sign of contact. If you've read The Psychic Mafia you'd know that the author routinely had an accomplice come into the room for various reasons

Quote:

Yes I agree, I’m merely providing both sides of the debate. Let’s also be skeptical of Harry Price’s theory, I think you will probably agree all the material in that photograph did not come from inside Helen Duncan’s body. Nor do I think a fat lady with a cheese cloth over her head is impressive or matches the opinion of magician Will Goldston who said ..... ' I personally carried on a conversation with a small female form called Violet. She told me she was eight years of age, and permitted me to feel her hand. Now, there is not, so far as I am aware - and I am a magician of lifelong experience - any system of trickery which can achieve the astounding results which I witnessed that evening with Mrs. Duncan.’

Does Mrs. Duncan have any daughters? Children have been used before to create the illusion of a manifestation. It's particularly convincing because the person leading the seance could not be mistaken for the manifestation. Especially if there are multiple children/manifestations

[Bleever]

Quote:

Originally posted by Operaider

Does Mrs. Duncan have any daughters? Children have been used before to create the illusion of a manifestation. It's particularly convincing because the person leading the seance could not be mistaken for the manifestation. Especially if there are multiple children/manifestations

Yes.. Gena

Quote:

In a dramatic two-world test it has been established by her daughter that Helen Duncan is one of the controlling spirit entities behind the Leicester-based home circle which is receiving superb phenomena.

Daughter Vouches for Helen Duncan's Séance

[Ozgrabme]

Why is that dog dressed like Mother Teresa, and why is it putting its intestine in that poor woman's nose?

[jambo372]

Zombified
quote :

Quote:

Surely if it was real it could be replicated today.

How's she going to replicate the effect now ? She's only been dead for nearly 50 years.