What I was going to say was we don't have any grasp of the mechanics of the phenomena, but it seemed too clumsy a word. Basically, I think it's reasonable to attribute all phenomena that can be ascribed to tricks, as such.
Ok I think I understand where you stand on this. I agree,
most of the explanations of the mechanics that I have read are vague too. There are however some very detailed descriptions of how the phenomena are achieved. Whether these descriptions are to be believed or not is another question.
There are two issues for me: 1) are the phenomena genuine? and 2) if they are genuine, how are they accomplished? I am still working on 1). I am less interested in the how. I don't expect everyone to share my priorities :). To me, "tricks" mean fraud.
If you are referring to those aspects of mediumship which are simply 'phenomena' - trumpets moving at great speed, icy blasts, raps etc. I don't really see a great deal of evidential value to them although they are a curiosity and many of them, if genuine, would indicate an intelligence directing them. As far as survival evidence is concerned, to me, they amount to precisely squat.
You probably appreciate though that the Independent Direct Voice, and Full Form Materialisation are also considered types of Physical Mediumship and IMHO they have the potential to be highly evidential. Provided that is, one can reduce or eliminate the possibility of fraud and that the purported communicators are known to us and can convey enough information about themselves for the dialogue to be evidential. The mediumship of Minnie Harrison for example is particularly interesting as it was recorded in detail by Tom Harrison however we are reliant on Tom's effectiveness as a witness and unless we knew him personally, that's probably quite hard to assess (though he did make a short film describing his experiences).
With mediumship, we have to examine the message, and what it tells us.
We are in agreement here. To prove
survival though, the message is not sufficient as far as I can see. Determining the true source of it is vital.
Dead mother telling us she's okay is meaningless, even to the offspring seeking closure.
Unless the ostensible communicator has been able to prove their identity to a satisfactory standard for the recipient of the message.
Mother telling us there's a letter we never knew existed in a box in cousin Mabel's pantry with a share of her inheritance, is useful information.
Useful yes, but not proof of survival.
I want to know why it lacks any the depth of living conversation, and unequivocal confirmation is rare.
I completely agree it is rare. It is not however unheard of. You mentioned earlier that you didn't find many of the recordings (if any) of the Independent Direct Voice convincing. There are many however who have found convincing evidence via this method, particularly when they have spoken to people they knew. If you haven't read it, you might find Leslie Flint's autobiography quite interesting (Voices In The Dark). I am not saying it will or should convince you, but I found it quite impressive. There is also the mediumship of Emily French summarised in a very digestible form in "The French Revelation" by Riley Heagarty.
The type of recordings I think you refer to are usually monologues, or at the most questions put by someone at the sitting who did not know the ostensible communicator and wouldn't be able to confirm their identity. To me,that is very different to a conversation between two people who know each other. I can think of a number of reasons why these recordings might not be convincing (assuming no fraud) but even then they are merely an element of a much larger body of evidence aren't they?
(I must say I am enjoying this conversation). Alas the hour is late and I must to bed....