soulatman
Member
I am starting this thread as a number of what I believe to be credible people have put forward Leslie Flint as a medium par excellence. Flint's mediumship involves Independent Direct Voice phenomena where he allows spirit to speak through an ectoplasmic voice box that Flint facilitates (I am told channelling is the wrong term). However, I don't see anything remarkable, in fact I am concerned that it seems to me like fakery (I am very hopeful that I am wrong).
I did not want to post this topic in the Skeptics vs Believers as I personally am very convinced in the authenticity of mediumship, particularly people like John Edward and others who have been investigated by the likes of Gary Schwartz, and others. As such, I don't want to tangle with skeptics stuck in the brain = mind paradigm. I want to discuss this with people who are beyond that.
My first concern came when I looked up Flint on youtube channelling (sorry wrong term) Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The voice coming through Flint certainly seemed to have a lot in common with sir Arthur, however, his very subtle Scottish accent was missing. Flint's Conan Doyle had absolutely no hint of Scottish.
Here is Flint:
Here is Sir Arthur:
Someone said that if I understood more about this phenomena, I would realise that accents are not important, however I do not see why or how this can be so. Especially in light of the fact that other voices have very strong accents.
For example, I recently viewed a youtube video of Flint being the medium for the the voice of Frederich Chopin (French Composer). The voice had a very clear and very strong French accent. Why would this be so if accents were not important?
Also, I heard Mahatma Gandhi (one of my biggest hero's, a voice I am intimately familiar with) coming from Flint, clearly an accent is attempted, but absolutely nothing like Gandhi's accent (nor his tone). Honestly, I don't know what to make of this, or how to reconcile these inaccuracies and inadequacies. What compels anyone to say these communications are genuine? I am genuinely interested.
I did not want to post this topic in the Skeptics vs Believers as I personally am very convinced in the authenticity of mediumship, particularly people like John Edward and others who have been investigated by the likes of Gary Schwartz, and others. As such, I don't want to tangle with skeptics stuck in the brain = mind paradigm. I want to discuss this with people who are beyond that.
My first concern came when I looked up Flint on youtube channelling (sorry wrong term) Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The voice coming through Flint certainly seemed to have a lot in common with sir Arthur, however, his very subtle Scottish accent was missing. Flint's Conan Doyle had absolutely no hint of Scottish.
Here is Flint:
Here is Sir Arthur:
Someone said that if I understood more about this phenomena, I would realise that accents are not important, however I do not see why or how this can be so. Especially in light of the fact that other voices have very strong accents.
For example, I recently viewed a youtube video of Flint being the medium for the the voice of Frederich Chopin (French Composer). The voice had a very clear and very strong French accent. Why would this be so if accents were not important?
Also, I heard Mahatma Gandhi (one of my biggest hero's, a voice I am intimately familiar with) coming from Flint, clearly an accent is attempted, but absolutely nothing like Gandhi's accent (nor his tone). Honestly, I don't know what to make of this, or how to reconcile these inaccuracies and inadequacies. What compels anyone to say these communications are genuine? I am genuinely interested.