Jump to content

Talk:Helen Duncan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Helen Duncan caught in fraud

[edit]

This reference will be added to the article. Duncan was exposed as a fraud by the London Spiritualist Alliance:

By far the best illustration of irrational faith in a proven charlatan, however, is provided by the followers of the notorious materialization medium, Helen Duncan. The first serious investigation of Mrs Duncan was by the London Psychical Laboratory (the research department of the London Spiritualist Alliance) in 1931. In consequence of impressive accounts of her mediumship that body invited Mrs Duncan to sit exclusively for them for a period of eighteen months, and signed a contract with her to that effect-a contract, incidentally, which she made no scruple to break. The investigating committee made particular efforts to discover the nature of the 'ectoplasm' said to come from the medium, from which the materializations were supposed to have been formed.

Test conditions were made progressively stricter throughout the series of séances, and as the degree of control increased, so the phenomena lessened and finally ceased altogether. When the one-piece garment, in which the medium was clothed from head to foot, was stitched on her by a special form of sewing, it was found after the séance that the 'code sewing' had disappeared and the dress had been restitched in a different manner. The committee had no doubt that she had got out of her dress on a number of occasions. 'When so-called full forms appeared, they were indistinct in outline, resembling masses of ectoplasm draped over a structure of some kind, which suggested the human form.' At one time three hands were seen, two clearly those of the medium and the third dark and solid. 'The only possible explanation,' reported the committee, 'is that Mrs Duncan had previously secreted about her person a rubber glove which was used for the exhibition of the third hand.'

Samples of the so-called 'ectoplasm' were submitted for analysis. One was found to consist of 'paper, cloth, and such everyday materials mixed with an organic substance which is in every respect similar to coagulated white of egg'. Another was found to be 'a piece of surgical gauze soaked in resinous fluid. The gauze consisted of typical cotton fibres. The resinous fluid had the odour of Canada balsam or one of the pine resins.' Another piece of 'ectoplasm' was found to be identical in pattern and texture with a sanitary towel which the medium left behind in the dressing-room.

The committee's final report stated: 'It was proved that the material was swallowed by Mrs Duncan at some time previous to the sitting and subsequently regurgitated by her for the purpose of exhibition.' After the final séance Mrs Duncan's husband, who had been at every sitting, told the committee that he believed the 'ectoplasm' to be the result of regurgitation.

Simeon Edmunds. (1966). Spiritualism: A Critical Survey. Aquarian Press. pp. 137-138 Steve the Skeptic (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Blitz Witch"?

[edit]

Can we please get some good sources that Duncan is commonly known by this name, which are not linked to the Tony Robinson documentary? There are currently 86,000 ghits for "Helen Duncan" and a whopping 536 for "helen duncan" "blitz witch" "-tony robinson" - and most of those still refer to the documentary. If you exclude hits after 2008 (the year of the documentary), you get seven or eight hits, most of which are *still* undated "Blitz Witch" documentary references. I'm not sure that it deserves the prominence in the lede that it's currently been given. Vashti (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this as I'm not satisfied that it's in fact an alias of Duncan's, much less that she is widely known by it. Vashti (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Husband

[edit]

In the Infobox, he is listed as 'Henry Duncan (1916–1967)'. The year 1916 was when they married. But she died in 1956. Presumably 1967 refers to his death. The correct info in the box would be '1916-1956'. Valetude (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]