Comedian Camps It Up From The Beyond

#1
Here's something controversial which should prompt a comment or two from you....
It's the recording of a seance with the late UK medium Colin Fry and the deceased communicator comedian Kenneth Williams complaining bitterly about a British TV show on his life which I vaguely remember watching.
Because Colin Fry latterly became known as a mental medium (his shows are still on TV) many people don't know he was also a physical medium.
On this occasion it's claimed that Colin was in deep unconscious trance and the voice was generated by an ectoplasmic voice box.
I have been to similar seances where the voices appear to come from mid-air in the
room.
I haven't listened to all of this but camp Kenneth sounds exactly like he did in life and what with jokes about farts, it could be a scene from Carry On Living! (For those non-UK folk, Kenneth was the star of many Carry On films)
Just how this kind of afterlife fits with the images we get from NDE experiencers, I am unsure.
In fact I never quite know what to make of all this.....


 
#2
Interesting. Recently there was a 3-hour radio program featuring some of Kenneth Williams' work.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b071brjs

Here, the introductions are voiced by an actor in the role of Williams. Probably one of the most impersonated voices, because of both the vocal quality as well as distinctive mannerisms, it left me feeling distinctly uneasy at the taking of liberties in the actor speaking in the first person, "I" and "me". Given that, I'm not sure how I react to the recording posted by Psiclops. One thing, most (maybe not all) impersonations take on the public comedy persona, rather than trying to portray the real person. Certainly that recording (I've only listened to a few minutes at the beginning) seems more like a real person. Other than that I'll leave it open without making any assessment.
 
#3
Interesting. Recently there was a 3-hour radio program featuring some of Kenneth Williams' work.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b071brjs

Here, the introductions are voiced by an actor in the role of Williams. Probably one of the most impersonated voices, because of both the vocal quality as well as distinctive mannerisms, it left me feeling distinctly uneasy at the taking of liberties in the actor speaking in the first person, "I" and "me". Given that, I'm not sure how I react to the recording posted by Psiclops. One thing, most (maybe not all) impersonations take on the public comedy persona, rather than trying to portray the real person. Certainly that recording (I've only listened to a few minutes at the beginning) seems more like a real person. Other than that I'll leave it open without making any assessment.
I agree Typoz. It's an interesting artefact but without knowing the circumstances it's hard to comment further. It does sound like a natural conversation to me too. I'd be curious to know if there was anyone present who actually knew Kenneth Williams.
 
#4
I am starting with the assumption that this séance happened as stated. Also, I have no prior knowledge of the comedian or the medium. With that this séance tapped into the ego or personality aspect of Kenneth. My first thoughts were ‘how sad’. This entity was quite desperate for airtime and adulation.

The recording does get a bit better after minute 43:00, where he clearly appeals to the ego of the attendees, calling them all ‘spiritual people’. This was soaked up with much praise. He also bragged about how busy he was on the other side and how much he was in demand, while at the same time had difficulty giving up his airtime, something even a participate commented on.

There was no meaningful content transmitted in the full 55 minute recording. Nor was there a feel of tapping into a higher realm. It was just an ego taking the opportunity to vent his grievances and hear himself speak. He is aware that he has passed on, but psychologically is not in a very healthy place; at least this is my interpretation.

Does this give evidence of a reality beyond this life? Maybe that anything and everything is indeed possible. It is not my interpretation of the afterlife, but could match up with stories I hear of the astral plane. A realm closest to our physical reality where many entities are stuck in time, unwilling or unable to move on and step into ‘the light’ I hear so much about.

Personally I gravitate more towards a field of consciousness that may have been created and kept alive by the memories of the people who knew and watched him.
 
#6
It sounded very typical of the man to me. Very human. I'm not sure what it's purpose was though.

If people think we suddenly become elevated after death in our thinking that isn't supported by very much of the ADC evidence.
 
#7
If people think we suddenly become elevated after death in our thinking that isn't supported by very much of the ADC evidence.
Not elevated, no, but my assumption is that they have access to a bigger picture than before. I keep hearing about the life review one gets to do on the other side. Be that from mediumship readings, from people who have had a near death experience or those who regularly travel out of body.

Kenneth understands that he is dead; hence I would expect that the communication with the soul or whatchamacallit that survives has integrated his life experience and learned from it somehow. Especially ten years after being dead. Getting so upset about a tv documentary does make sense from a human point of view, but Kenneth is no longer a human or a person. This however, might open an entirely different can of worms.
 
#8
Not elevated, no, but my assumption is that they have access to a bigger picture than before. I keep hearing about the life review one gets to do on the other side. Be that from mediumship readings, from people who have had a near death experience or those who regularly travel out of body.

Kenneth understands that he is dead; hence I would expect that the communication with the soul or whatchamacallit that survives has integrated his life experience and learned from it somehow. Especially ten years after being dead. Getting so upset about a tv documentary does make sense from a human point of view, but Kenneth is no longer a human or a person. This however, might open an entirely different can of worms.
You'd have to know the individual to be honest. Personally I'd take it as a bit of humour. I don't think the 'dead' necessarily have access to a much bigger picture, at least not initially. People change slowly in my experience. Although I am very different to the person I was thirty years ago, I'd still be easily recognisable to people who knew me (by personality as opposed to looks).

Although a review (of any kind) might help us to see how we can do better, actually making the changes to reflect that isn't always so easy in my experience. I don't think ten years is long at all. Plus of course he may have wanted to make sure he was recognisable as the person he claimed to be. If my granny came back and started talking like a college professor I'd have difficulty believing it was really her :)

Personally I think there are often very significant differences between descriptions of life in 'the world unseen ' from people who have experienced NDE events and the like and those through mediumship. There are also lots of similarities. I don't know what to make of it.

I am curious to understand what you mean by saying Kenneth (if it was indeed he) is no longer human or a person. Assuming we survive death and the communication is what it purports to be he is certainly still a person and I'd argue human too. He just doesn't have a physical body any more.
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#9
Seems like only some people get a life review.

I suspect if there's an afterlife it's rather messy. People go to different realities, some reincarnate (not necessarily by choice), etc.

Souls may end up in realities that are close cousins to this one, heck they may need to get a 9-5 to make ends meet.

Not very glamorous, but I think if one looks at all the different experiences this kind of heterogeneous collection of afterlives seems plausible?
 
#10
heterogeneous collection of afterlives
This seems fair. There is no reason why it would not be so. Here, the one thing we have in common is to inhabit a physical body. Beyond that, it would seem there is a vast range of possibilities. I think the idea of 'afterlife' is itself misleading. A silly term, which inevitably adds confusion.

The problem. as I see it, is placing an Earthly existence as primary, and considering anything else as an add-on extra. Maybe the Earthly existence is the add-on-extra and some other - - - range of possibilities - - - is the primary.
 
#11
I am curious to understand what you mean by saying Kenneth (if it was indeed he) is no longer human or a person. Assuming we survive death and the communication is what it purports to be he is certainly still a person and I'd argue human too. He just doesn't have a physical body any more.
The term ‘human’ has quite a specific definition if you check with Wikipedia, and does not include disembodied entities. A ‘person’ is a bit more difficult to define as arguments are being made for fetal and animal rights etc. But again it is used for a living being by both society and law.

I don’t know Kenneth, and that is why my view is more detached. But both my parents have passed on. I do believe they continue to live in spirit, but referring to either as human or person doesn’t make sense to me. My relationship is only to the memory I have of them when they were still in body.

This is why I think it might be useful to not project words that are used for a living being to a disembodied entity that may or may not exist. To differentiate between our memories of that human and the part we think is eternal and lives on in a different form.
 
#12
My relationship is only to the memory I have
This to me feels rather awkward. I'd like to apologise since it was expressed in a very personal context and I have no wish to intervene in such a delicate area. Again I can only ask for forgiveness here.

Still. I sometimes relate to each of my deceased parents, but it isn't only to a memory. Things change, nothing is static, A memory might be like a photograph, a frozen instant in time. But in connecting with them, there is fresh and new ground.

Oh, that still feels clumsy and blundering. Sorry about that.
 
#13
This to me feels rather awkward. I'd like to apologise since it was expressed in a very personal context and I have no wish to intervene in such a delicate area. Again I can only ask for forgiveness here.

Still. I sometimes relate to each of my deceased parents, but it isn't only to a memory. Things change, nothing is static, A memory might be like a photograph, a frozen instant in time. But in connecting with them, there is fresh and new ground.

Oh, that still feels clumsy and blundering. Sorry about that.
There is no need to apologize. I don't even think we are talking about different things, maybe just have different ways of expressing it. In my frame of reference a memory is not static, not like a photograph and changes over time. My relationship with my parents is changing as I grow and see my past differently. But I still call it a relationship with a memory not the eternal part I believe they live on as.

See, I knew this would be a can of worms. :)
 
#14
The term ‘human’ has quite a specific definition if you check with Wikipedia, and does not include disembodied entities. A ‘person’ is a bit more difficult to define as arguments are being made for fetal and animal rights etc. But again it is used for a living being by both society and law.

I don’t know Kenneth, and that is why my view is more detached. But both my parents have passed on. I do believe they continue to live in spirit, but referring to either as human or person doesn’t make sense to me. My relationship is only to the memory I have of them when they were still in body.

This is why I think it might be useful to not project words that are used for a living being to a disembodied entity that may or may not exist. To differentiate between our memories of that human and the part we think is eternal and lives on in a different form.
Hi Nicole

I'm not sure Wikipedia is the right authority to cite here. To me, if we accept for arguments sake that we survive physical death, then the question is 'what survives?'. A human according to the Oxford English Dictionary is "
A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superiormental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." . It doesn't refer to having a physical body but I can see the implication is that it probably would on the basis of common usage - that is we make a distinction between living and dead humans.

Except of course in the context here. I think it's a question of the application of the words. The Kenneth in the recording it clearly to me 'a person'. Is he human? Well not physically that's for sure, however I think we'd probably have to ask him what he thought he was. I still think 'human' is correct. He's certainly not a cat or a dog.:)

If the recording is genuine he isnt merely a memory or a recollection of a person. More like someone on the end of a telephone as far as I can see. I don't think it's a can of worms you've opened. Discussion is one of the ways we all learn and develop. We won't fall out over it. We can certainly agree to differ.
 
#15
Hi Nicole

I'm not sure Wikipedia is the right authority to cite here. To me, if we accept for arguments sake that we survive physical death, then the question is 'what survives?'. A human according to the Oxford English Dictionary is "
A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superiormental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." . It doesn't refer to having a physical body but I can see the implication is that it probably would on the basis of common usage - that is we make a distinction between living and dead humans.

Except of course in the context here. I think it's a question of the application of the words. The Kenneth in the recording it clearly to me 'a person'. Is he human? Well not physically that's for sure, however I think we'd probably have to ask him what he thought he was. I still think 'human' is correct. He's certainly not a cat or a dog.:)

If the recording is genuine he isnt merely a memory or a recollection of a person. More like someone on the end of a telephone as far as I can see. I don't think it's a can of worms you've opened. Discussion is one of the ways we all learn and develop. We won't fall out over it. We can certainly agree to differ.
Hi Obiwan

I am not disagreeing that your interpretation could be absolutely right. I can’t make an argument against it. I am merely trying to say that this consciousness we are trying to wrap our heads around is so poorly understood, and could take on so many forms, that other explanations could be just as valid.

That isn’t an argument against the likelihood of survival, but the opening up to more possibilities. By taking human terminology out of our reference to the afterlife, we are more likely to entertain such possibilities.

I don’t think I can express myself any better at this point, but thank you for giving me the opportunity to try and pushing me a bit. Talking about this subject is new territory for me and yes, Typoz is right, some of this feels really awkward to express in words.
 
#16
Hi Obiwan

I am not disagreeing that your interpretation could be absolutely right. I can’t make an argument against it. I am merely trying to say that this consciousness we are trying to wrap our heads around is so poorly understood, and could take on so many forms, that other explanations could be just as valid.

That isn’t an argument against the likelihood of survival, but the opening up to more possibilities. By taking human terminology out of our reference to the afterlife, we are more likely to entertain such possibilities.

I don’t think I can express myself any better at this point, but thank you for giving me the opportunity to try and pushing me a bit. Talking about this subject is new territory for me and yes, Typoz is right, some of this feels really awkward to express in words.
No problem. I'll stick with human terminology (For now)
 
#17
If indeed we were listening to Kenneth Williams, I must say I feel rather sad. The fact is, he made a lot of people laugh, and yet he seemed to become morose later in life because he didn't consider himself a great actor. I would have hoped that after death he would have come to see his life from a more positive perspective.

David
 
#18
If indeed we were listening to Kenneth Williams, I must say I feel rather sad. The fact is, he made a lot of people laugh, and yet he seemed to become morose later in life because he didn't consider himself a great actor. I would have hoped that after death he would have come to see his life from a more positive perspective.

David
Maybe he will eventually lol
 
#19
I think this was probably the documentary being discussed at this séance:
I'm still unclear how the deceased Kenneth managed to view it - somebody asked but I couldn't catch the reply.
 
#20
I'm still unclear how the deceased Kenneth managed to view it - somebody asked but I couldn't catch the reply.
The reply I think was a rather offhand comment, something like, "I've done it before through him over there" (not an exact quote, just my interpretation) which I guessed (but could be wrong) that he meant through Colin Fry.
 
Top