Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rudi Schneider Case. An example of errors galore on wikipedia by so called 'skeptics'

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OM,

    There's now a paranormal wikipedia project:

    CZ:Paranormal Subgroup - Citizendium

    So you could get involved and upload an article on Rudi Schneider or Helen Duncan without any skeptical content...
    Last edited by Fodor2; January 19th, 2014, 12:30 AM.

    Comment


    • On the previous page you mentioned J. B. M'Indoe. His statement can be found online here:

      http://www.woodlandway.org/PDF/PP4.8August08..pdf

      Mrs. Duncan's Materialising Mediumship Statement by Mr. J. B. M'Indoe President, S.N.U

      He talks about the exposure by Esson Maule, where Duncan was caught pretending a vest was a spirit. Some of his comments:

      I have found no evidence of the “frame-up,” but there is evidence of a very careful and thorough setting of the stage for the scene in which Mrs. Duncan acted the part expected of her – if not, in fact, desired of her – by some of the sitters. Other sitters, I am satisfied, were quite unaware of any expected exposure and resented the manner in which they were involved in it.
      I see no escape from the conclusion that Mrs. Duncan was detected in a crude and clumsy fraud – a pitiable travesty of the phenomena she has so frequently displayed. I have no doubt that the fraud was deliberate, conscious and premeditated, and I think it very probable that it was neither the first act of fraud at that sitting nor the first sitting at which it occurred.
      I am quite satisfied that Mrs. Duncan behaved after the exposure in a disgraceful and discreditable way, and was herself alone responsible for the calling of the police. The exposure seems thoroughly deserved. Had it been made primarily in the interests of Spiritualism, it would not have been in the daily Press.
      I retract nothing from what I have previously written in defence of Mrs. Duncan's mediumship. I have not the slightest doubt that she has wonderful powers as a materialising Medium. The pity is she has abused these gifts, simulated them, and descended to vulgar, detestable trickery.
      As you can see from his quotes that he published he believed Duncan was caught in trickery but he still believed she had paranormal powers. This is an example of a spiritualist confessing that Duncan did perform trickery and he didn't buy into the conspiracy theories of "framing" Duncan. Are you saying he later retracted those comments? If so do you have a reference for that?
      Last edited by Fodor2; January 19th, 2014, 12:54 AM.

      Comment


      • Brigadier Roy Firebrace (British Intelligence) said so after WW2 ended (his family even said so on TV) he claimed that he warned British intelligence that Duncan had correctly named sunk warships and that led to the police raid .....
        Sorry I can't look into this any further, I was meant to leave this forum yesterday I am leaving to go back to NZ tomorrow and I don't have time for internet discussions anymore on this or this subject. I need to put my time into my career now. It has been rather addictive over the years and not what I want anymore, I have tried to quit researching this subject on several occasions but a few months come back to it again, this time will be for real. I am giving up researching psychical stuff because I need to be studying stuff for my science career. The psychical research can be addictive and not what I am interested in anymore. Natural science is the real me.

        Like yourself and most people I hope there is an afterlife but I am not convinced by these mediums but I am willing to admit their are pseudoskeptics out there who automatically dismiss all this stuff without researching it or trying to solve it, that isn't me... I have spent ages reading books on this subject and it has come to and end. I have fallen out with other skeptics over this subject, some have even been abusive to me, they didn't even bother to research it and I want nothing to do with them. I don't consider myself part of the skeptic community, I was mostly an alone researcher, nothing more nothing less. I am a free-thinker and mostly worked lone wolf but I shared an account with someone I know, admittedly I used to have some contacts in psychical research but I do not work for any organization like people have claimed in the past and certainly not for any skeptic group. The whole believer vs skeptic thing is stupid, people should just learn to ignore each other or get on.

        You obviously know more than this about me regarding specific details on the Duncan case. I did a quick search for Roy Firebrace and he is mentioned in Hellish Nell: Last of Britain's Witches by Malcolm Gaskill. I did read it a few years ago and thought it was the most detailed book on Duncan, but I can't remember hardly any of it. You should drop Gaskill some emails. He opinions are interesting. There's a lot of stuff we are missing in this thread. I don't have anymore time to bring up any more names or events. I will discuss those puppet mask photographs in the other thread in one post, but that honestly has to be my last post here... otherwise we will keep going back and forwards... and I am too busy now in real life for all of this.

        I appreciate all your research, I know you disagree with me but I want to thank you for the debate... even if you think I am a pseudoskeptic I have presented more material than other skeptics on this forum. I am critical of this spiritualist stuff and I don't believe in the paranormal. There is a naturalistic explanation for this stuff in my view. I respect magicians, they should be appreciated for all the work they do.

        I read over some of your other threads on this forum about Houdini, mediums and other psychical researchers.... all fascinating stuff it's a shame not many users gave you detailed debates or responses, I am sorry to see that. I have tried to give you my best shot. That's all I have. Thanks again. To any readers who comes across this thread interested like I stated the book Spiritualism: A Critical Survey by Simeon Edmunds is the best I believe on the subject.

        Obviously this thread will be left open, the user Boblius will probably post up some further information. You can continue to debate Duncan, Schneider or rebut other information if you like but I won't be around to further respond in this thread. Good luck with your research.
        Last edited by Fodor2; January 19th, 2014, 01:34 AM.

        Comment


        • OM, one last thing have you ever watched Jonathon Creek? No matter how complex the case he always finds a naturalistic explanation. I recommend you watch it

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fodor2 View Post
            Robert Hartley's book is for sale at various spiritualist churches:

            The official Greater World website and online bookshop - General interest



            "state conspiracy to convict Helen Duncan"

            You can read a review of Hartley's book here, he believes the British Intelligence MI5 set Duncan up...
            Hartley is correct and you are rolling your eyes in ignorance The Brigadier (in British intelligence) who reported to British intelligence that Duncan had correctly named sunk ships confirmed after WW2 (and his daughter confirmed again on TV) that it was his prior report that had triggered the later police raid .... even a member of the court prosecution team against Duncan said (after WW2) there was a plot to have Duncan imprisoned, he didn't believe Duncan was a genuine medium but believed she was a risk as a spy for naming sunk warships.
            Last edited by Open Mind; January 19th, 2014, 06:30 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fodor2 View Post
              As for C. E. Bechhofer Roberts he was one of the first to suggest Duncan used a secret accomplice in his book The Truth about Spiritualism... he was proven correct
              Wrong, Duncan was never caught with an accomplise helping, it is not 'proven' .... most people believe Duncan is defintiely a fraud due to photographs most of which emerge via Harry Price (a forger of relics and fake photographs according to others in his day) .... and photographs of uncertain origin that emerged via associates of Price or came to light afterthe Duncans had died .... at least 46 other Duncan's photographs claimed to once exist have gone missing and were reportedly destoryed in house fire after Mr and Mrs Duncan's death, along with their version of events.

              What has been completely missed out in this thread is hundreds of eyewitness reports to evaluate sources free from Harry Price (and others whose stories magically appear via Price) the majority are actually positive, neutral or suspicious but unproven to be fraud. You are too lazy to even read those and simply have unshakable faith Harry Price (a forger) would never fake photographs.

              I will post some of the witness reports from esteemed witnessed, more favourable to Duncan.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fodor2 View Post
                Regarding British Intelligence/MI5 conspiracy theories:
                Garvarn's Blog Archive: Nothing unexplained about Helen Duncan
                Misses out contrary information.

                It's a fabrication suggested by spiritualists after Duncan had died.
                Many spiritualists never claimed that, some did. Although Duncan's daughter Gena claims to have seen the burns, doctors gave other reasons for her death (diabetes, if I recall)

                I don't think MI5 were involved... but I am willing to agree to disagree as I know you probably think they were involved.
                It doesn't matter what you think at least one person in MI5 disagreed with your opinion.
                Last edited by Open Mind; January 19th, 2014, 07:54 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fodor2 View Post
                  R
                  Also Duncan was found with a mocked-up HMS Barham hat-band which was alleged to be from the spirit of a dead sailor on HMS Barham, but Duncan had made an error as in 1939 sailors did not wear hat-bands identifying their ship.
                  More nonsense, no hat-band was ever captured .... ... why must you invent hearsay ... why not simply report both sides on wikipedia and let the public make up their own minds?
                  Last edited by Open Mind; January 19th, 2014, 07:23 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fodor2 View Post
                    OM,

                    There's now a paranormal wikipedia project:

                    CZ:Paranormal Subgroup - Citizendium

                    So you could get involved and upload an article on Rudi Schneider or Helen Duncan without any skeptical content...
                    I am NOT opposing genuine skeptical content, I am opposing totally one sided militant materialist (with the misnomer 'scientific skeptics') misreporting or selectively reporting on wikipedia.
                    Last edited by Open Mind; January 19th, 2014, 07:28 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fodor2 View Post
                      . Are you saying he later retracted those comments? If so do you have a reference for that?
                      Yes ... and it is not my job to spend hours scanning sources for you to dismiss regardless.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fodor2 View Post
                        I am giving up researching psychical stuff because I need to be studying stuff for my science career. The psychical research can be addictive and not what I am interested in anymore. Natural science is the real me.
                        Please research topics you like rather than dislike ... you have such endurance (on wikipedia) I'm sure you will be very successful doing something positive that makes you happy

                        You obviously know more than this about me regarding specific details on the Duncan case. I did a quick search for Roy Firebrace and he is mentioned in Hellish Nell: Last of Britain's Witches by Malcolm Gaskill. I did read it a few years ago and thought it was the most detailed book on Duncan, but I can't remember hardly any of it.
                        I've got Gaskill's book it is very detailed with some important errors. While I respect his time and effort, with a title like 'Hellish Nell', I think he had no intention of being neutral. I understand he is a historian who has to play numberless dot to dot to write an accessible, popular book, not annoy fellow materialist academics, etc. ... but these dots can be joined quite differently to tell a different story and Gaskill did not tell that version.


                        I read over some of your other threads on this forum about Houdini, mediums and other psychical researchers.... all fascinating stuff it's a shame not many users gave you detailed debates or responses
                        I would have won anyway Perhaps.

                        I am sorry to see that. I have tried to give you my best shot. That's all I have. Thanks again.
                        I'm sorry to be rude at times ..it is hard to avoid when errors are made in the public arena of debate... . As you know I was always polite in private mails.

                        I won't be around to further respond in this thread. Good luck with your research.
                        Good luck! ......great, now I can have the last word
                        Last edited by Open Mind; January 19th, 2014, 01:01 PM.

                        Comment


                        • My final comment in thread …. I will add more detailed references to the opening posts on Rudi Schneider, fix an inaccurate comment made to Boblius and amend some of my too unkind criticism of Fodor.

                          I do feel it was unfair in this debate of Fodor to raise the Helen Duncan case in a topic on Rudi Schneider case. It seemed to me an attempt to debunk by association to irrelevent Duncan photographs which I was happy to discuss in a separate thread.

                          Readers should not confuse the Rudi Schneider case with the Helen Duncan case.
                          They have little in common other than a Harry Price happened to investigate both cases. The Rudi Schneider case is the more evidential, superior case due to being investigated by numerous scientists and even magicians who supported Schneider's phenomena as genuine. In contrast the Duncan case is one that skeptics like to make fun of by using photographs, particularly the worst photographs of a questionable, contradictory origin as I will point out in a future thread.

                          The Rudi Schneider case
                          Almost 800 people investigated the Schneider phenomena, hundreds making signed statements supporting authenticity …. it is hardly surprising that some of these skeptical witnesses suggested it must be fraud, even if fraud was not detected or a plausible method sugggested. Skeptic books focus on these isolated unproven suggestions of fraud and ignore superior controlled tests which by design ruled out these very suspicions.

                          So why is the Rudi Schneider not a well known case today? This is largely due to one man, called Harry Price. First Harry Price claimed Rudi Schneider was genuine in tightly controlled experiments completely ruling out fraud …. then he later claimed Rudi Schneider was fraudulent medium due to just one photograph (that cannot explain other prior investigations) which showed a free arm of the unconscious medium supposed to be held (to prevent cheating) by none other than Harry Price himself!

                          Price did not claim fraud at the sťance, , it is hard to believe he could completely lose hold of a hand like the photograph shows and not notice at the time. None of the witnesses saw this alledged fraud in decent light. It took Price 11 months to make a public claim that he had detected fraud in a photograph. Others rightly suspect Price (who studied photography and optics) of forging a photograph, as he had written to a colleague (Fraser-Harris) 'not a shred of evidence that Rudi ever cheated' *after* the date he supposedly detected fraud in a photograph.

                          Price's photograph was defended by his secretary (under his employment) and his colleague Mollie Goldney (according to one witness his lover) who both claimed to have previously seen the photograph the day after sťance . So claims of forgery were suppressed. But did they? Rudi Schneider version of events did not match their claims.

                          Price was largely believed by the media and skeptics and over 200 experiments around Europe dismissed over 1 single photograph. .... yet days before Harry Price died in 1948, he reaffirmed in a letter Rudi Schneider had produced genuine phenomena after completely wrecking Schneiders reputation in the 1930s … but it was too late, the reputation of Rudi Schneider had been wrecked and largely forgotten.

                          In the 1970s Anita Gregory went looking for the original photograph and found brown paper on it that happened to conceal the exposure of the feet/lower leg positions …was Price trying to hide details deliberately? Sadly Gregory's arguments were dismissed by Dr Alan Gauld and other SPR council members. One could speculate that the SPR council members were unwilling to cast doubt upon long term fellow council member Mollie Goldney's version of events that lended support to Harry Price's version.

                          Yet Harry Price seems a forger prior to the Rudi Schneider case ..
                          In the Southern Weekly News of New Year's Day 1910, a report details one of Harry's lectures in December the previous year. It was at this talk that he first exhibited an inscribed Roman silver ingot that he claimed he had discovered while walking across a ploughed field some months earlier, in the same area as the bone and his other finds. Again, the find was on the surface of the soil. It was the sort of relic an archaeologist would dream of finding because it established the area as a major historical location......... After a series of passionate and energetic lectures, in January 1910 he suddenly withdrew from the public glare. ...... Charles Praetorious, Secretary of the local FSA, showed the ingot to Professor E.J. Haverfield of Oxford University, the country's foremost expert on Roman history and a Fellow of the British Academy. Haverfield was in no doubt as to its origin.

                          In his report on the excavation at Borough, Praetorious reported that:

                          Professor Haverfield said the double axe type of silver ingot was well known and dated from late Imperial times but the one recovered from Sussex was an inferior copy of one found at the Tower of London, with alterations to give it an air of authenticity. Both the shape and lettering betrayed its origin.30

                          It was a forgery .................Despite this, three decades later Price repeated the false history of the ingot and the mysterious runic bone in his autobiography, thinking that after thirty years it would be safe to do so....'


                          Richard Morris book, Hary Price: The Psychic Detective (page 30 to 33)
                          Conclusion: I would like to see the Rudi Schneider case reopened by the Society for Psychical Research and Harry Price's photograph examined by several independent neutral sources using the latest computer technology.
                          Last edited by Open Mind; January 19th, 2014, 11:13 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Pneuma
                            There are dozens of other cases which I would prefer to be (re)examined
                            So you joined this forum just to say you would prefer a unsolved mystery remains unsolved. That is a mystery in itself

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X