Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
person1

The Sisters Who Spoke To Spirits

61 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

papageorge1
23 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Seriously, read the Wiki and let me know what you think please.

Since you asked me to be serious I read the article and will tell you what I think. I have been reading this stuff for decades and it is written in the characteristic style of skeptic literature. They present the best possible argument for a fully materialistic explanation. They will quote in a convincing style only those that agree with them but the convincing proponents and the arguments for the other side do not get mentioned. One needs to hear from all sides to have an informed understanding. We must also be interested in hearing of any rebuttals to the critic's position. This will never come from a CSICOP, Skeptics Dictionary, Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia and other allied sources. 

Basically, it is one-sided literature with such an obvious agenda I just take it as the best materialist argument that can be made. When reading, I consider the source.

You can find tons of discussions on the Fox Sisters. From the other side here is one from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
15 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

You can find tons of discussions on the Fox Sisters. From the other side here is one from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Here's one that's rather neutral

https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
18 minutes ago, Piney said:

Here's one that's rather neutral

https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm

Neutral? It reads like a one-side only anti-Doyle spiritualism article.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Neutral? It reads like a one-side only anti-Doyle spiritualism article.

I just read the first few lines. I have a load of Colin Wilson and other books with the Fox Sisters in them and have no interest in them. 

Contacting the dead is a huge no-no in my spiritual tradition. It's our belief that it does more psychological harm then good. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
35 minutes ago, Piney said:

I just read the first few lines. I have a load of Colin Wilson and other books with the Fox Sisters in them and have no interest in them. 

Contacting the dead is a huge no-no in my spiritual tradition. It's our belief that it does more psychological harm then good. 

Many have been helped positively by quality mediums genuinely contacting departed loved ones and bringing mental comfort. Ouija boards are dangerous.

IMO

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, papageorge1 said:

 Ouija boards are dangerous.

Oh, don't I know it.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
20 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Since you asked me to be serious I read the article and will tell you what I think. I have been reading this stuff for decades and it is written in the characteristic style of skeptic literature. They present the best possible argument for a fully materialistic explanation. They will quote in a convincing style only those that agree with them but the convincing proponents and the arguments for the other side do not get mentioned. One needs to hear from all sides to have an informed understanding. We must also be interested in hearing of any rebuttals to the critic's position. This will never come from a CSICOP, Skeptics Dictionary, Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia and other allied sources. 

Basically, it is one-sided literature with such an obvious agenda I just take it as the best materialist argument that can be made. When reading, I consider the source.

You can find tons of discussions on the Fox Sisters. From the other side here is one from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

So, do think what’s written and cited is false?

Another case of ‘easy to prove, but no proof’, in centuries of human history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, Timothy said:

So, do think what’s written and cited is false?

 

The writing style is typically to just quote the opinions of fellow 'skeptics'. 

1 hour ago, Timothy said:

 

Another case of ‘easy to prove, but no proof’, in centuries of human history. 

Logically, such things are not provable. The most that can be said is no fraud was found during an event. Here's one of many.

Sir William Crookes OM PRS (/krʊks/; 17 June 1832 – 4 April 1919) was a British chemist and physicist who attended the Royal College of Chemistry[1] in London, and worked on spectroscopy. He was a pioneer of vacuum tubes, inventing the Crookes tube which was made in 1875.

From the link I provided above:

It was about this time that Professor William Crookes conducted his inquiries into the medium's powers, and issued that whole-hearted report which is dealt with later when Crookes's early connexion with Spiritualism comes to be discussed. These careful observations show that the rappings constituted only a small part of Kate Fox's psychic powers, and that if they could be adequately explained by normal means they would still leave us amid mysteries. Thus Crookes recounts how, when the only people present besides himself and Miss Fox were his wife and a lady relative "I was holding the medium's two hands in one of mine, while her feet were resting on my feet. Paper was on the table before us, and my disengaged hand was holding a pencil.


"A luminous hand came down from the upper part of the room, and after hovering near me for a few seconds, took the pencil from my hand, rapidly wrote on a sheet of paper, threw the pencil down, and then rose over our heads, gradually fading into darkness.
 

Edited by papageorge1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

The writing style is typically to just quote the opinions of fellow 'skeptics'. 

Logically, such things are not provable. The most that can be said is no fraud was found during an event. Here's one of many.

Sir William Crookes OM PRS (/krʊks/; 17 June 1832 – 4 April 1919) was a British chemist and physicist who attended the Royal College of Chemistry[1] in London, and worked on spectroscopy. He was a pioneer of vacuum tubes, inventing the Crookes tube which was made in 1875.

From the link I provided above:

It was about this time that Professor William Crookes conducted his inquiries into the medium's powers, and issued that whole-hearted report which is dealt with later when Crookes's early connexion with Spiritualism comes to be discussed. These careful observations show that the rappings constituted only a small part of Kate Fox's psychic powers, and that if they could be adequately explained by normal means they would still leave us amid mysteries. Thus Crookes recounts how, when the only people present besides himself and Miss Fox were his wife and a lady relative "I was holding the medium's two hands in one of mine, while her feet were resting on my feet. Paper was on the table before us, and my disengaged hand was holding a pencil.


"A luminous hand came down from the upper part of the room, and after hovering near me for a few seconds, took the pencil from my hand, rapidly wrote on a sheet of paper, threw the pencil down, and then rose over our heads, gradually fading into darkness.
 

What’s wrong with a factually written article?

Why are you ignoring all the factual stuff? Provides a pretty reasonable explanation, no?

They were never able to prove what they were claiming, and there is a simple and logical explanation, which they admitted to. 

From the wiki:

Kate was one of mediums examined by William Crookes, the prominent physicist, between 1871 and 1874, who concluded the raps were genuine. However, Crookes was described as gullible and the mediums he investigated were caught using trickery.[14][15]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
21 minutes ago, Timothy said:

What’s wrong with a factually written article?

Why are you ignoring all the factual stuff? Provides a pretty reasonable explanation, no?

They were never able to prove what they were claiming, and there is a simple and logical explanation, which they admitted to. 

From the wiki:

Kate was one of mediums examined by William Crookes, the prominent physicist, between 1871 and 1874, who concluded the raps were genuine. However, Crookes was described as gullible and the mediums he investigated were caught using trickery.[14][15]

Come now, Tim. Is it a fact because it  is written? But then only when written by skeptics but not believers though. I hope you are just pulling my leg and will get serious like I did.

A skeptic is skeptical of believers and non-believers I would hope realizing they might fallible or have an agenda.

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
22 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Come now, Tim. Is it a fact because it  is written? But then only when written by skeptics but not believers though. I hope you are just pulling my leg and will get serious like I did.

A skeptic is skeptical of believers and non-believers I would hope realizing they might fallible or have an agenda.

That’s why I used the term ‘factually written article’. 

You believe the paranormal side of it, which has little merit. However, you choose to ignore the factual side of it, which actually explains what happened. That is a bit of a conundrum.

I am serious, what’s more likely? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
10 minutes ago, Timothy said:

 what’s more likely? 

That you are smarter than ,your last post.

Enough.......until we do it again probably

I actually consider the preponderance of evidence from multiple sources against opposing argumentation and form an informed position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
41 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That you are smarter than ,your last post.

Enough.......until we do it again probably

I actually consider the preponderance of evidence from multiple sources against opposing argumentation and form an informed position.

Well, if you know something I don’t, let me know.

This is a historical case. It’s a pretty safe bet that no new info will come out regarding it.

It’s always astounding that you choose to believe the paranormal claims, which have no proof or basis in reality, while you ignore the factual claims, which actually explain the case.

What do you think of the confession then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, Timothy said:

Well, if you know something I don’t, let me know.

This is a historical case. 

What do you think of the confession then?

I’ve formed my opinion on this historical case. That it is a case with plenty of human foobles but one where genuine paranormal activity was overwhelmingly likely to have been part or we wouldn’t be talking about it still.

My opinion on the confession: The confession, which never explained all the phenomena, was coerced from a sad alcoholic that later tried to retract even that, but the damage was by then permanently done.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I’ve formed my opinion on this historical case. That it is a case with plenty of human foobles but one where genuine paranormal activity was overwhelmingly likely to have been part or we wouldn’t be talking about it still.

My opinion on the confession: The confession, which never explained all the phenomena, was coerced from a sad alcoholic that later tried to retract even that, but the damage was by then permanently done.

The reason this case is still discussed is not because of any genuine paranormal activity, but because of the impact it had on the spiritualist movement.

As for Maggie Fox's confession, it wasn't coerced, nor was she an alcoholic (her sister Kate was). Furthermore, as part of her confession, she did indeed explain (and also demonstrate) how they were able to carry out the hoax. Later, under a pseudonym, she detailed some of the tricks of the trade even further.

More on the Fox sisters and Maggie's confession:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-fox-sisters-and-the-rap-on-spiritualism-99663697/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Not sure what to make of the Fox sisters, but I have very little belief that anyone can summon the "beyond", to act on cue.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

The reason this case is still discussed is not because of any genuine paranormal activity, but because of the impact it had on the spiritualist movement.

As for Maggie Fox's confession, it wasn't coerced, nor was she an alcoholic (her sister Kate was). Furthermore, as part of her confession, she did indeed explain (and also demonstrate) how they were able to carry out the hoax. Later, under a pseudonym, she detailed some of the tricks of the trade even further.

More on the Fox sisters and Maggie's confession:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-fox-sisters-and-the-rap-on-spiritualism-99663697/

I was aware and considered the above points of view before coming to my position that genuine paranormal activity was almost certainly involved in the case.

I also consider and expect there will be a materialist/skeptical best effort to explain-away each and every figure and event in the entire tomes of paranormal/spiritualist literature. As I said, my considered position is that there were many human foibles involved in this case but also genuine paranormal activity. I think some of the better testing, like I stated previously (like from Professor William Crooke for example) is the strongest evidence that  something paranormal occurred. I think some of the confessed explanations would not have gotten past any serious investigator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
3 hours ago, Habitat said:

Not sure what to make of the Fox sisters, but I have very little belief that anyone can summon the "beyond", to act on cue.

I have very little belief that "channelers" who actually make contact with something know what they are actually talking to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
55 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I was aware and considered the above points of view before coming to my position that genuine paranormal activity was almost certainly involved in the case.

I also consider and expect there will be a materialist/skeptical best effort to explain-away each and every figure and event in the entire tomes of paranormal/spiritualist literature. As I said, my considered position is that there were many human foibles involved in this case but also genuine paranormal activity. I think some of the better testing, like I stated previously (like from Professor William Crooke for example) is the strongest evidence that  something paranormal occurred. I think some of the confessed explanations would not have gotten past any serious investigator.

Really? A great many certainly got past Professor Crookes.

His penchant for Florence Cook, for example, seemed to have impacted his ability to see things clearly as evidenced by his ardent belief in her mediumship as well as her ability to materialise spirits, such as Katie King. Florence later explained to one of her lovers how she managed to work around Crookes' various electronic testing devices.

But Florence wasn't the only fake to have duped Crookes. Others he tested were also later exposed as frauds, including a spirit photographer who had managed to convince Crookes that the psychic photograph of Crookes' dead wife was genuine.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/william-crookes

You acknowledge that some of the incidents with the Fox sisters may indeed have been faked, but still argue that other phenomena were were genuine. I would argue that if indeed they had the abilities they claimed to have had, there would not have been a need to have faked anything to begin with. Maggie's confession, coupled with her public demonstrations of the tricks the sisters employed, is more than sufficient evidence that the entire affair was a deliberate scam.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg

What's the meaning of talking to dead people? You are dead that means you do not exist what's the point of dying if people can still disturb you and ask silly questions? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
32 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Really? A great many certainly got past Professor Crookes.

His penchant for Florence Cook, for example, seemed to have impacted his ability to see things clearly as evidenced by his ardent belief in her mediumship as well as her ability to materialise spirits, such as Katie King. Florence later explained to one of her lovers how she managed to work around Crookes' various electronic testing devices.

But Florence wasn't the only fake to have duped Crookes. Others he tested were also later exposed as frauds, including a spirit photographer who had managed to convince Crookes that the psychic photograph of Crookes' dead wife was genuine.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/william-crookes

You acknowledge that some of the incidents with the Fox sisters may indeed have been faked, but still argue that other phenomena were were genuine. I would argue that if indeed they had the abilities they claimed to have had, there would not have been a need to have faked anything to begin with. Maggie's confession, coupled with her public demonstrations of the tricks the sisters employed, is more than sufficient evidence that the entire affair was a deliberate scam.

My first point would be the old ‘according to whom’ response to Crookes being duped many times. I just used Crookes as one example here. I have not made a study of Crookes,  but did he ever admit to being duped after conducting a thorough investigation or is that just the allegations of his critics.

As I said previously, the hard-core materialist/skeptic must have an allegation or explain-away for every psychic person or. Investigation that suggests something they are not comfortable with. So that there is a claim that Fox duped Crookes is just a given with e.

And the case rests not on Crookes either. And to clarify, i said human  foobles were involved but I never said that I believed they hoaxed some things during their prime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I find all this anti-materialist/anti-skeptic vibe going on in the forum a tad annoying. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
55 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My first point would be the old ‘according to whom’ response to Crookes being duped many times. I just used Crookes as one example here. I have not made a study of Crookes,  but did he ever admit to being duped after conducting a thorough investigation or is that just the allegations of his critics.

As I said previously, the hard-core materialist/skeptic must have an allegation or explain-away for every psychic person or. Investigation that suggests something they are not comfortable with. So that there is a claim that Fox duped Crookes is just a given with e.

And the case rests not on Crookes either. And to clarify, i said human  foobles were involved but I never said that I believed they hoaxed some things during their prime.

You touted Crookes' studies and experiments as being among some of the strongest evidence of paranormal activity and one of the reasons why you have taken the position you have. He was indeed duped not by one, but by several, and yes he did admit to having been duped by some. So it would behoove you to make a study of Crookes and others like him before claiming that they in any way were able to provide non-refutable evidence of an afterlife.

As for your comment about skeptics, it's misinformed. What skeptics are not comfortable with are people who take advantage of the naive and ignorant, and also of the grieving. It is beyond me how anyone with any sense would believe the nonsense of so-called mediums, especially long after they've admitted that it was all a hoax.

Claims that the Fox sisters and other charlatans duped Crookes and others, were not made by skeptics alone, they were also made by the perpetrators themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
42 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I find all this anti-materialist/anti-skeptic vibe going on in the forum a tad annoying. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way. 

Meh, it's just a defense mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Meh, it's just a defense mechanism.

I know. To me it sounds like, "let's not think, let's just believe everything. Who needs to figure out the truth."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.