colin fry's magic pendulum

[GrandMasterFox]

someone thought she was genuine someone else did not. we have not seen her so we shall never know.

I don't mean to be offensive, but are you for real?!?
You know that people tested Uri Geller and claimed he has real magical powers till someone (*cough* James Randi *cough*) debunked the heck out of him.

Not to mention Allison Dubois and tons of others who were tested by "real" professionals, however, when you actually examine the test you find out its an utter mess.

And if you can't examine the evidence by yourself then consider it on the site of "it's not real" because it's "fake until proven otherwise".

there were others of that calibre.

What calibre? Seriously, people think L.Ron Hubbard had magical powers. I can only imagine what will people say about him in 50 years.

anyway, they did not have premium rate phonelines which says something about them.

Nope. It doesn't say squat.
You will be amazed how many ways the scammers have to charge you and it's also possible that they were too stupid to know how to work the market.

 

[silver birch]

I don't mean to be offensive either, but to go through life saying 'if I don't see it I don't believe it' is a cop out. if you were called to do jury service you would have to come to a conclusion on the witness evidence of a third party.

 

[silver birch]

Eileen Garrett and the R 101 airship. the story is told in a book entitled 'The airmen who would not die' by John Fuller.

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/R-101.htm

 

[Garrette]

Eileen Garrett and the R 101 airship. the story is told in a book entitled 'The airmen who would not die' by John Fuller.

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/R-101.htm

Seom research before believing would help. I mean real research. It doesn't have to take long or cost anything, but it does have to include skepticism.

This is from a post I made on a magic forum three years ago. In that post I was dissecting a multitude of claims. R101 ("The Airmen Who Would Not Die") was just one of them:


#19: Airmen Who Would Not Die

The first claim: Captain Hinchliffe, who disappeared crossing the Atlantic in 1928, appeared via Ouija board to medium Mrs. Earl. When this proved too slow, he appeared by speaking to medium Eileen Garrett. He gave unknowable details about his death and life. Hinchliffe also warned that the R-101 was in danger of crashing if it flew in bad weather.

The second claim: First Lieutenant Irwin, Captain of the airship R-101, spoke through Eileen Garrett’s control, Uvani, after R-101 crashed in October of 1930, killing most aboard. Irwin provided unknowable technical detail about the airship and gave the cause of the crash which the Court of Inquiry later verified. (Other crew members were alleged to have also spoken through Garrett, but Irwin was primary.)

The facts:

Regarding the first claim: Hinchliffe provided no verifiable information about his death. None. He provided no information about his life that could not be deduced by a moderately skilled cold reader. He provided no specific information at all about the R-101 except that it was dangerous to fly in bad weather which had already been demonstrated in its trials; in addition, Garrett did not reveal Hinchliffe’s comments about R-101 until after the crash.

Regarding the second claim: This is blatant misreporting of the facts. Garrett (speaking as Irwin) threw out some technical sounding terms, some of which were correct, but the majority was simply a string of things that did NOT match what the Court of Inquiry found.

Garrett said R-101 was unstable, but that had already been demonstrated in its air trials.

She said the engines were too small for the load, but this was untrue and technically amateurish. The engines do not provide the lift; the hydrogen bags do.

She said the ship nearly scraped the roofs of Achy, France, which was not on any maps but which was on the final route of the airship. Regardless if Achy is on a map, R-101 did not nearly scrape the roofs of any village or town in France. It crashed into a hillside near Beauvais.

Before she mentioned any cause of the crash, she was visited by Major Villiers of the Ministry of Civil Aviation who sat with her several times and asked leading questions (check Keen’s sources for this).

She said the added middle section was entirely wrong. (The Ministry had added a third hydrogen bag after the trials). But the middle section had nothing to do with the crash.

She eventually said the reason for the crash was that the engine’s were too small and could not provide enough lift. This could hardly be more wrong. The cause of the crash, as reported by the Court of Inquiry, was that the wind tore back the outer covering on the nose of the airship, thereby letting the hydrogen out. Nothing at all to do with the engines or any other of the seemingly impressive details Garrett spouted.

Debunked.

 

[Garrette]

I will only say they did not make lots of money doing theatre tours with flashy suit changes and gold cufflinks, have premium rate phonelines, sell dvds at ripoff prices, and unlike present day mediums, allow themselves to be tested.

You are only correct in the details, not the concept. Wealthy mediums (media?) were not invented with television and premium phone lines. Even one you have referenced (Leonora Piper) did well for herself. Read up on Daniel Dunglas Home for someone who raked in the moolah.

And regarding Leonora Piper, in that other-forum-post from three years ago, I also addressed what Montague Keen said was her best evidence. Here it is:

[#20: The Lethe case]

The claim: It is best to simply quote Keen (2003):

Leonora Piper channeled F.W.H. Myers spirit. George Dorr was testing her. He asked “Myers” what the word “Lethe” meant to him (because Myers was a classical scholar and Piper was not). Piper came out with “a considerable number of references,” many that Dorr did not know. He investigated and found them to be “references to persons, incidents, descriptions and places found in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, which gives an account of the mythological Hadean stream of Lethe…”

Later, Sir Oliver Lodge heard what Dorr had done and asked Mrs. Willett, who was also channeling Myers, the same question. Willett gave another long list of references, different from Piper’s. “Virtually all of these were found to derive not from Ovid but from an entirely different account connected with Aeneas’s visit to Elysium with Anchisis, his father, as described in Book Six of Virgil’s Aeneid, on which Myers had once written a scholarly commentary.”

Since neither Piper nor Willett (Coombes-Tennant) were classical scholars, this knowledge, especially across two mediums, is very strong evidence of survival.
​

The facts:Keen himself said that the references Piper gave weren’t specific at all but were “oblique.” In other words, they had to be interpreted to fit. And NONE of them actually said that Lethe is the stream bounding the shores of the Elysian fields.

Keen also said of the references that Willett gave that they were “allusive,” again meaning that they had to be interpreted. And NONE of the allusions were even to the work in which Lethe is found.

To sum it up: Neither medium claiming to channel Myers gave any information answering the question about Lethe. In fact, the mediums gave distinctly different answers which had to be wildly interpreted to even put them in the same ballpark as the work that mentions Lethe.

Nothing to debunk.


This was also on Keen's list:

#17: George Pelham

The claim: George Pelham was one of Leonore Piper’s many “controls” who provided a long string of unknowable information to Hodgson over many years of sittings. Since Pelham was a pseudonym (and Piper never learned the man’s real name), Piper could not conceivably have researched anything about him. Pelham successfully recognized thirty people he knew when he was alive, and never once falsely recognized someone he did not know. The only person he knew when alive whom he failed to recognize was Miss Warner who was a lady when he appeared as a control but who was a child when he was alive.


The facts:

1. Pelham is a pseudonym. In 1888, Pelham sat once with Piper without revealing his real name. In 1892, he died of a fall.

2. While I do not know Pelham’s real name, even the Piper supporters admit he had been a member of ASPR.

3. Pelham appeared through Piper one month after his death and then periodically for six more years. He appeared for over 150 sitters.

4. Pelham was a close friend of Hodgson.

5. It is inconceivable that 30 people could verify that Pelham recognized them without revealing to Piper who Pelham actually was.

6. In addition, Hodgson admits that both he and Piper knew that Pelham had known Miss Warner as a child. This is not possible without Piper knowing who Pelham was.

7. Even Hodgson admits that some of Piper’s other controls were either fraudulent or unknowing extensions of her personality without real paranormal attributes (most notably Phinuit and the “Imperator Band.” Piper also claimed Johan Sebastian Bach as a control.)

8. Of all of Piper’s controls, Pelham is the only one not to speak and the only one to communicate with automatic writing. One could assume this is because Pelham was a friend of Hodgson’s and Hodgson might notice differences in speech patterns.

So the evidence boils down to Pelham recognizing people he knew when alive, but since Piper knew who he was and her primary sitter also knew him, this is no big deal.


There is nothing to debunk.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

I don't mean to be offensive either, but to go through life saying 'if I don't see it I don't believe it' is a cop out.

And you would be wrong. This is not a cop out, this is called using your brain and not falling to hoaxes and bogus stuff.

Let's go back to your metaphore.
What you have is not a white crow.
What you have is a picture of a white crow.
You cannot know for a fact if:
1)The crow is white (real ability)
2)It's a black crow that was painted white (fake ability)
3)It's a picture of a black crow that was photoshoped white (someone faked the report)

Now sometimes you could analyze the picture and find proof of #2 or #3, but you cannot proove #1. Never.
Therefore, you're preety much wasting your time on that.

A live white crow is useful.
A dead white crow is useful.
An egg of a white crow could be useful.
A feather of a white crow might be useful.
But a picture of a white crow is useless.

if you were called to do jury service you would have to come to a conclusion on the witness evidence of a third party.

I'm so glad you brought that out
Because you see, what you have isn't a direct testimony. It's an indirect testimony aka hearsay.

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence.

For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town". Since the witness did not see Tom in town, the statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. However, it would be admissible as evidence that Susan said Tom was in town, and on the issue of her knowledge of whether he was in town.

Even a court of law would reject such a bogus investigation.

But nontheless, I suggest you do some research and see for yourself(becuase I don't want you to accuse me of making stuff up) how much eyewitness testimony is considered credible in court.
Not the stuff you see on TV, the real life.
You'll be surprised at the statistics.

Out of curiosity, do you also acknowledge that ghosts, bigfoot and alien abductions are real because people truly believe in them and neither the ghost, bigfoot nor the aliens have tried themselves to charge money for it?

 

[silver birch]

Seom research before believing would help. I mean real research. It doesn't have to take long or cost anything, but it does have to include skepticism.

This is from a post I made on a magic forum three years ago. In that post I was dissecting a multitude of claims. R101 ("The Airmen Who Would Not Die") was just one of them:


#19: Airmen Who Would Not Die

The first claim: Captain Hinchliffe, who disappeared crossing the Atlantic in 1928, appeared via Ouija board to medium Mrs. Earl. When this proved too slow, he appeared by speaking to medium Eileen Garrett. He gave unknowable details about his death and life. Hinchliffe also warned that the R-101 was in danger of crashing if it flew in bad weather.

The second claim: First Lieutenant Irwin, Captain of the airship R-101, spoke through Eileen Garrett’s control, Uvani, after R-101 crashed in October of 1930, killing most aboard. Irwin provided unknowable technical detail about the airship and gave the cause of the crash which the Court of Inquiry later verified. (Other crew members were alleged to have also spoken through Garrett, but Irwin was primary.)

The facts:

Regarding the first claim: Hinchliffe provided no verifiable information about his death. None. He provided no information about his life that could not be deduced by a moderately skilled cold reader. He provided no specific information at all about the R-101 except that it was dangerous to fly in bad weather which had already been demonstrated in its trials; in addition, Garrett did not reveal Hinchliffe’s comments about R-101 until after the crash.

Regarding the second claim: This is blatant misreporting of the facts. Garrett (speaking as Irwin) threw out some technical sounding terms, some of which were correct, but the majority was simply a string of things that did NOT match what the Court of Inquiry found.

Garrett said R-101 was unstable, but that had already been demonstrated in its air trials.

She said the engines were too small for the load, but this was untrue and technically amateurish. The engines do not provide the lift; the hydrogen bags do.

She said the ship nearly scraped the roofs of Achy, France, which was not on any maps but which was on the final route of the airship. Regardless if Achy is on a map, R-101 did not nearly scrape the roofs of any village or town in France. It crashed into a hillside near Beauvais.

Before she mentioned any cause of the crash, she was visited by Major Villiers of the Ministry of Civil Aviation who sat with her several times and asked leading questions (check Keen’s sources for this).

She said the added middle section was entirely wrong. (The Ministry had added a third hydrogen bag after the trials). But the middle section had nothing to do with the crash.

She eventually said the reason for the crash was that the engine’s were too small and could not provide enough lift. This could hardly be more wrong. The cause of the crash, as reported by the Court of Inquiry, was that the wind tore back the outer covering on the nose of the airship, thereby letting the hydrogen out. Nothing at all to do with the engines or any other of the seemingly impressive details Garrett spouted.

Debunked.

not for me, you've left out many of Irwin's statements through Garrett, in fact nearly all of them. have you read John Fuller's book?
page 119- Irwin's comments through Garrett

the whole bulk of the dirigible was entirely and abdolutely too much for her engine capacity

engines too heavy

it was this that made me on five occasions have to scuttle back to safety

useful lift to small

this idea of new elevators totally mad

gross lift computed badly,inform control panel

elevator jammed

oil pipe plugged

this exorbitant scheme of carbon and hydrogen is entirely and absolutely wrong (this would have consisted of a highly technical and important experiment, and would be unlikely to be known outside of official circles)

to begin with, the demand for it would be greater than the supply

also let me say this, I have experimented with less hydrogen in my own dirigible with the result that we are not able to reach 1000 metres

with the new carbon hydrogen you will be able to get no altitude worth speaking about. with hydrogen one is able to do that quite easily

greating lifting than helium

explosion caused by friction in electric storm

flying too low altitude and could never rise

disposible lift could not be utilized

load too great for long flight

same with S.L.S., tell eckener ( number of a german airship, dr. eckener is the constructor of the zeppelin)

cruising speed bad and ship badly swinging

severe tension on the fabric which is chafing

engines wrong, too heavy, cannot rise

starboard strakes started

never reached cruising altitude, same in trials

too short trials

no one knew the shiip properly

airscrews too small

fuel injection bad and air pump failed

cooling system bad

bore capacity bad

next time with cylinders but bore of engine 1000 cc's, but that bore is not enough to raise too heavy load, and support weight

it had been known to me on many occasions that the bore capacity was entirely inadequate to the volume of the structure

this I had placed again and again before the engineer, without being able to enlarge capacity of diesel twin valve

had this been interchangeable with larger capacity, we might have made it

but the structure is no good. that actually is the case, not gas did not allow mixture to get to engine

backfired, fuel injection bad

crude oil is not inflammable

this is inflammable

also to begin with there was not sufficient feed leakage

pressure and heat produced explosion

five occasion I had to scuttle back

three times before starting not satisfied with feed

alredy a meeting feel desirous to push off and set our course and overhaul
completely against this

weather bad for long flight

fabric all waterlogged and ship's nose down

impossible to rise

cannot trim

new type of feed entirely and absolutely wrong

two hours tried to rise but elevetor jammede

almost scraped the roofs at Achy

kept to railway

at inquiry to be held later it will be found that the superstructure of the envelope contained no resilience and had far too much weight

this was not so until march of this year of this year when no security was made by adding of super-steel structure

I knew then that this was not a dream but a nightmare

the added middle section was entirely wrong. it made strong but took resilience away and entirely impossible. too heavy and too much over-weighted for the capacty of engines

from beginning of trouble, I knew had not a chance, knew it to be the feed and we could never rise

 

[silver birch]

Achy is not shown on ordinary maps. but it is shown on special large scale ordinance flying maps, such as Irwin was in possession of. Achy is a small village 12.5 miles north of Beauais, and would be on the R 101's route. it was stated in evidence by french officials,(though their evidence was discredited) that at Poix, 14 miles north of Achy, the airship was seen to be only 300 feet from the ground.

 

[silver birch]

Will Charlton was the chief supply officer of the R 101 at the Cardington base where the staements from the seance were taken.
page 333
Will Charlton's life, for one was profoundly affected. there was no longer any doubt in his mind about the life-after-death question. he suddenly changed to a convinced spiritualist.nearly ten tears after his careful review of the R 101 seances transcript, he saw harry price again. charlton told price that the only possible explantion was that captain irwin did communicate after his physical death.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If people can talk to the dead, why don't they ever come up with something really useful, like where Uncle Henry hid the gold, or maybe something as mundane as asking a murder victim " Who killed you ? "

 

[Garrette]

not for me,

Then you're stretching the evidence to fit just like Fuller (apparently) instead of following where the evidence leads.

you've left out many of Irwin's statements through Garrett, in fact nearly all of them.

Of course I have. I'm not going to write a book on here.

have you read John Fuller's book?

No. Have you read the Court of Inquiry report? And compared it to Garrett's statements?

page 119- Irwin's comments through Garrett

the whole bulk of the dirigible was entirely and abdolutely too much for her engine capacity

So you didn't read my post. This is absolute drivel. It is more than wrong (or to quote Asimov: "It's not even wrong.")

Engine capacity has nothing to do with lift. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Irwin would know this; Garrett apparently did not.

engines too heavy

Too heavy for the hydrogen lift capacity? This, too, is wrong.

it was this that made me on five occasions have to scuttle back to safety

A meaningless statement.

useful lift to small

If referring to the engines, it is something Irwin would not say. If referring to the hydrogen lift, it is simply incorrect.

this idea of new elevators totally mad

A meaningless statement.

gross lift computed badly,inform control panel

Wrong, unless she's referring to the time before the addition of the third (middle) compartment. And that information was available publicly when she made her comments.

elevator jammed

oil pipe plugged

Show me where the Court of Inquiry confirmed this, then show me when she said it relative to when the Court's findings were released.

this exorbitant scheme of carbon and hydrogen is entirely and absolutely wrong (this would have consisted of a highly technical and important experiment, and would be unlikely to be known outside of official circles)

No. You'll have to do far better than proof-by-proclamation.

to begin with, the demand for it would be greater than the supply

This is nonsensical in relation to the R101.

also let me say this, I have experimented with less hydrogen in my own dirigible with the result that we are not ablr reach 1000 metres

Completely irrelevant. We're talking about the R101.

with the new carbon hydrogen you will be able to get no altitude worth speaking about. with hydrogen one is able to do that quite easily

The R101 got altitude, plenty of it. Then it lost it.

greating lifting than helium

???

explosion caused by friction in electric storm

More proof you didn't read my post. This is false. Untrue. Incorrect. Wrong. Off base. Non-factual. Read my post. Better yet, look up the Court of Inquiry results and read that.

flying too low altitude and could never rise

Amazing. After a dirigible crashed a psychic was able to tell us that it crashed because it wasn't high enough.

disposible lift could not be utilized

I tell you what: You tell me what this statement means, then I'll worry about it.

load too great for long flight

Oh, my. The amazing psychic parrots the results of the previous trials, already publicly available.

same with S.L.S., tell eckener ( number of a german airship, dr. eckener is the constructor of the zeppelin)

Meaningless statement.

cruising speed bad and ship badly swinging

severe tension on the fabric which is chafing

engines wrong, too heavy, cannot rise

starboard strakes started

never reached cruising altitude, same in trials

too short trials

no one knew the shiip properly

airscrews too small

fuel injection bad and air pump failed

cooling system bad

bore capacity bad

Go compare to the Court of Inquiry findings and get back to me.

next time with cylinders but bore of engine 1000 cc's, but that bore is not enough to raise too heavy load, and support weight

Again with the not-even-wrong statements about the engines providing lift. If this by itself does not throw the whole thing off for you then you need to step back and reassess how you're approaching this.

it had been known to me on many occasions that the bore capacity was entirely inadequate to the volume of the structure

Ditto.

this I had placed again and again before the engineer, without being able to enlarge capacity of diesel twin valve

had this been interchangeable with larger capacity, we might have made it

but the structure is no good. that actually is the case, not gas did not allow mixture to get to engine

backfired, fuel injection bad

crude oil is not inflammable

this is inflammable

also to begin with there was not sufficient feed leakage

pressure and heat produced explosion

five occasion I had to scuttle back

three times before starting not satisfied with feed

alredy a meeting feel desirous to push off and set our course and overhaul
completely against this

You're seriously suggesting that this stream of consciousness nonsense is convincing?

weather bad for long flight

Long public knowledge.

fabric all waterlogged and ship's nose down

impossible to rise

cannot trim

new type of feed entirely and absolutely wrong

two hours tried to rise but elevetor jammede

Sigh...

almost scraped the roofs at Achy

By your own admission this isn't even true.

kept to railway

Again, check the Court of Inquiry.

at inquiry to be held later it will be found that the superstructure of the envelope contained no resilience and had far too much weight

this was not so until march of this year of this year when no security was made by adding of super-steel structure

Check the Court of Inquiry.

I knew then that this was not a dream but a nightmare

Next time have the courtesy of removing the nonsubstantive statements.

the added middle section was entirely wrong.

The third bit of evidence that you didn't read my post. This was addressed. She knew about the added section because it was public knowledge.

it made strong but took resilience away and entirely impossible.

Another nonsensical statement that isn't even wrong.

too heavy and too much over-weighted for the capacty of engines

And again with this idiotic statement that is sufficient by itself to show that Garrett was making this up. The engines have nothing to do with the lift. Nothing.

from beginning of trouble, I knew had not a chance, knew it to be the feed and we could never rise

No.

 

[Garrette]

Achy is not shown on ordinary maps. but it is shown on special large scale ordinance flying maps, such as Irwin was in possession of. Achy is a small village 12.5 miles north of Beauais, and would be on the R 101's route. it was stated in evidence by french officials,(though their evidence was discredited) that at Poix, 14 miles north of Achy, the airship was seen to be only 300 feet from the ground.

So by your own admission (1) R101 did not fly over Achy, and (2) it was 300 feet above ground when it was seen. To be nearly scraped, a building would have to be about 28 stories tall. How many of the building in Poix are that tall? And how many of the buildings in Poix are in Achy?

 

[Garrette]

Will Charlton was the chief supply officer of the R 101 at the Cardington base where the staements from the seance were taken.
page 333
Will Charlton's life, for one was profoundly affected. there was no longer any doubt in his mind about the life-after-death question. he suddenly changed to a convinced spiritualist.nearly ten tears after his careful review of the R 101 seances transcript, he saw harry price again. charlton told price that the only possible explantion was that captain irwin did communicate after his physical death.

Fascinating. Completely irrelevant but fascinating. Proclamations matter for zilch in the face of evidence. In this case the weight of the evidence is on the side of Garrett making it up. The evidence in favor of Garrett actually channeling Irwin or the other crew members is zero.

 

[Garrette]

Just to summarize my long post in case you don't want to read it all:

1. Eileen Garrett was wrong about the cause of R101's crash

2. She was wrong about the location of the crash

3. She was wrong about the village she said it flew over

4. She was wrong about the altitude of R101 when it flew over a village

5. She was absolutely, positively, incontrovertibley incorrect about the role of the engines

6. If she were actually channeling the pilot (Irwin), she would have been wrong on none of those, especially the engine part

7. Those things she can be said to have been correct about were already available through:
a. The media
b. The Court of Inquiry
c. The knowledge of the person who came to interview her who was untrained in doing so without asking leading questions

8. Much of what she said was unverifiable filler material


So, silver birch, if you want me to spend any more time on this then pull from your knowledge of this case the best statement she made that fits these criteria:

a. It is verifiable
b. It is correct
c. It was not available through any of the means mentioned above
d. It is not something that any reasonably intelligent person could surmise from context

 

[silver birch]

note 7 contradicts your previous post which makes it nonsense.
the seance was held BEFORE the inquiry.
you were not at the inquiry so I would like to know where you obtained your information. have you read the book? there were 7 sittings and I cannot reprint them all.
according to wikipedia
the court of inquiry concluded that there was evidence that there had been a failure of the outer cover of the upper nose. this it was postulated led to the destruction of a gas bag and loss of the flammable hydrogen and caused the nosed to drop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101

another website the same
http://www.philbrick2255.org.uk/pdf/r101airship.pdf

back to 'the airmen who would not die' page 386
Irwin speaking through Garrett

now I will tell you the truth. one of the struts in the nose collapsed and caused a TEAR IN THE COVER. now listen carefully. it is the same strut that caused the trouble before and they know. the wind was blowing hard and it was raining also. now you see what happened. the rush caused the first dive and then we straightened again and another gust surging through the hole finished us.

 

[silver birch]

I've just been reading the book and I'll be honest I've slipped up here.
the transcript I quoted was a seance shortly after the inquiry started.
however in the later seances, Irwin speaking through Garrett produced a lot of information which investigators are certain Eileen Garrett would have no way of knowing.
the transcripts I posted previously were from a seance before the inquiry,
as was the seance when captain hinchliffe who died in a plane crash spoke through garrett and predicted the R101 crash.
I suggest reading John Fuller's book for the best explanation of all the events surrounding this case.

 

[Garrette]

note 7 contradicts your previous post which makes it nonsense.

No. The list was a list of alternatives. The media coverage, including some technical information and flight behavior characteristics began long before the crash. R101 was a symbol of British pride and was highly publicized.

the seance was held BEFORE the inquiry.

Yes. And well after media coverage that began before the crash. And one day after an article in the Daily Mail was published describing the flight.

And the seance is not where much of the information came out. The remainder of the sittings occurred about three weeks later, well after many articles had been published, including one on October 10 in the journal “Flight.” Can’t recall the dates off the top of my head (my resources are not available to me right now), but I think the Villiers readings went for several months whereas most of the work of the Inquiry was done after about two months. More than that, Villiers himself says that his sittings became conversations as he became convinced that Garrett was actually channelling his old friends. The point being that he did not conduct a sterile interview but instead asked leading questions and made informative comments.

you were not at the inquiry

Neither were you and neither was Fuller. And to be clear: the inquiry was not one meeting or even a dozen meetings. It was a long investigation gathering hundreds of relevant documents.

so I would like to know where you obtained your information.

Where did Fuller obtain his? Show me you’ve applied the same scrutiny to his claim as you do to mine. (As I said above, my resources are not available to me right now; nor will they be for a few more weeks).

have you read the book?

I answered already. I answered no. Nor have I any interest in reading Fuller, though I will read references he uses. Do you know who Fuller is? He’s the same person who wrote the credulous best selling book about Barney and Betty Hill. His writings carry no weight.

Before you use my comments to paint me as closed-minded, note that I said I will read his references. Tell me what they are.

there were 7 sittings and I cannot reprint them all.

It would not avail you of much. The sittings with Villiers were recorded by Villiers in his own, quickly devised version of shorthand and were admittedly incomplete. He filled in the blanks later, relying on his memory. He did this even when Fuller interviewed him when he (Villiers) was 91.

according to wikipedia
the court of inquiry concluded that there was evidence that there had been a failure of the outer cover of the upper nose. this it was postulated led to the destruction of a gas bag and loss of the flammable hydrogen and caused the nosed to drop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101

another website the same
http://www.philbrick2255.org.uk/pdf/r101airship.pdf

Yes. I agree. This is what I have said.

back to 'the airmen who would not die' page 386
Irwin speaking through Garrett

now I will tell you the truth. one of the struts in the nose collapsed

No. The strut did not collapse. The Inquiry did not say this. There was a failure in the outer cover. Huge difference. Garrett was wrong.

and caused a TEAR IN THE COVER.

This part is correct. This part also did not happen during the seance on 7 October. It occurred during one of the readings with Villiers that began 3 weeks later, long after the site had been visited and articles had been published.

now listen carefully. it is the same strut that caused the trouble before and they know.

No.

the wind was blowing hard and it was raining also. now you see what happened.

The wind and rain were well known the night R101 took off and were discussed in the Daily Mail article on 6 October.

the rush caused the first dive and then we straightened again and another gust surging through the hole finished us.

The first diver near Beauvais and the subsequent, final dive were discussed in the 10 October article in “Flight.” The sittings with Villiers began after that.

I've just been reading the book and I'll be honest I've slipped up here.
the transcript I quoted was a seance shortly after the inquiry started.
however in the later seances, Irwin speaking through Garrett produced a lot of information which investigators are certain Eileen Garrett would have no way of knowing.

Be careful of your terms. The investigators who were certain weren’t the airship experts. Those were far less certain. Even Jarman, whom you use later as supporting your theory, did not say this.

the transcripts I posted previously were from a seance before the inquiry,

Yes, and they say nothing that wasn’t known publicly already or was too vague to mean anything or was wrong.

as was the seance when captain hinchliffe who died in a plane crash spoke through garrett and predicted the R101 crash.

Garrett (pretending to channel Hinchliffe) did not predict the crash of R101. Garrett said it was dangerous to fly R101 in bad weather. She said this after the already publicized trial flights demonstrated this.

I suggest reading John Fuller's book for the best explanation of all the events surrounding this case.

This is my last time playing whack-a-mole. Burden of proof is not on me to address every claim you toss out. Burden of proof is on you.

If you want to use Fuller, fine, but I won’t, so use his references instead. If he doesn’t list them, then that should tell you something.

Pick the one or two or no more than three specific things that you think represent the best evidence in Garrett’s statements.

Tell me exactly what she said, exactly what the source is, and exactly when she said it in what forum. Until you do that it’s just ghost stories around the campfire.

 

[silver birch]

wikipedia and John Fuller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Fuller

another book by Fuller which involves the supernatural is The ghost of flight 401
http://www.ghost-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2483

Eileen Garrett was involved in much more than the R101 case which I have not got the time to go into. (AND I DO NOT THINK HER INTEGRITY IS UNDER QUESTION)


I have not read Betty and Barney Hill abduction but I don't think it's fair to rubbish it, and I think we should have an open mind on that topic.
Who is doing all these cattle mutilations?

 

[Garrette]

So you are unable to provide any information that meets the criteria. Got it.

 

[silver birch]

Eileen Garrett channeling Hinchliffe through Uvani.
The airmen who would not die page 169-
It was at the end of september that emille hinchliffe was concluding another session with garrett, recording it carefully in her shorthand book as usual. very suddenly, the message of hinchliffe coming through the voice of uvani changed its normal tone to one that resembled hinchliffe's.

I want to say something about the new airship. you know some of the people who have to do with it, but you will not like to broach the subject.
they will start without thinking of disaster, but the vessel will not stand the strain. it will come down on one side first.
I do not want them to have the same fate that I had, as johnston was a good friend of mine. I have tried to impress them myself, but it is inconceivable how dense these people are.
if the flight is put off it will be all right. I wish to goodness it were possible for you to tell johnston in confidence, and ask him to be careful. I know what I am talking about.

Hinchliffe had sent a milder warning some months before. this was more intense, more serious, more specific, and more direct. his appeal was directed at his close friend squadron leader johnston, and his concern was centred on him perhaps because of their close relationship.

page 176
some weeks before the R101 left its hanger, at a new session with eileen garrett, more disturbing news was coming to emilie hinchliffe from the voice of uvani. their meeting took place during those days when the public was waiting for the R101 to slide out of the hanger, before the rousing cheers went up as she locked into her tower.

I do not think these dirigibles are able to face climatic conditions, uvani was speaking, purportedly on behalf of hinchliffe. they have not the right wind resistance. they are fairly all right until they get to a certain altitude. there is sympathy with the hydrogen which weakens the tissues where the air combustion gas is kept. you get all sorts of locking at a certain altitude, you cannot get over it. these dirigibles cannot cut through the air, and gas envelopes attract currents. R101's maiden flight may be all right. nothing may happen for a time. but there is a great risk.