Dear Sirs,

There is a difference between trying to test if a certain hypothesis works
in a certain case and trying to show that the hypothesis works in that case.
The first action method is sound science, but the second is doubtful and
often leads to bad results.
I am very disappointed to see the second principle often applied in
parapsychology, very clearly by Persinger and Koren (2001) in their article
'Predicting the Characteristics of Haunt Phenomena from Geomagnetic Factors
and Brain Sensitivity: Evidence from Field and Experimental Studies' in
Hauntgs and Poltergeists; Multidisciplinary Perspectives. McFarland &
Company, Inc., 2001.

The principle is set in the beginning: "There is not a single case of haunt
phenomena whose major characteristics cannot be accommodated by
understanding the natural forces generated by the earth, the human barain
that are stimulated by these energies, and the interpretation of these
forces by normal psychological processes". This certainty is then applied
through the whole article.

Of what kind are these 'haunt phenomena'? The general characteristics of
them are represented rather well. Unfortunately, as haunt photographic
effects there are described common and normal optical effects that would
have been easy to let be checked by an expert in photography. There is no
mention of poltergeist phenomena, although the two types of phenomena are
overlapping and cannot be certainly divided into two separate groups. Gauld
and Cornell (1979) have discussed that in their book 'Poltergeists' and have
even used cluster analysis. My guess is that P&K would differentiate the
phenomena according to their fitting in their hypothesis, and that would not
be a scientifically correct method.

The article contains lots of empty and unnecessary jargon and junk physics.
I think it is really bad to loosely speculate on the territory of well
established physics and geology without using the experts in those
disciplines. That exposes parapsychology to ridicule. Some examples:

"The primary hypothesis is that transient geophysical fields (TGFs), that
involve both electromagneticlike and gravitylike components, are generated
by changing tectonic stresses within the earth's crust. The TGFs exist as
very brief, very localized manifestations of strain. Very small TGFs of
about 1 cm2 may exist for a few seconds while those of avout 1 m2 occur for
decaseconds." - Very dim indeed. What means that '-like" and are there
results of measurements? All seismographs in the world would register those
gravitational transients in vicinity.

"The transient focus of sharply defined strain fields and their
electromagnetic correlates within a house would allow migration of gases and
ions at maintained concentrations sufficient to be discerned by normal
olfaction." - Measurements? Sure, the measuring would be very difficult.

"We cannot exclude the possibility that persistent exposure to the fields
may have contributed to the electrical sensitivity of their brains". -
Reverse argumentation.

"The transient activation of a process within a local space that would
contain the physical parameters to create primary consciousness would
require a class of densities and stabilities of atomic elements, integrated
by geomagnetic activity and focal strain fields from tectonic stresses, for
which there is little contemporary knowledge." - Very dim, explaining by
badly known processes.


"The third process would involve transients in gravity and its intrinsic
correlates of physical time. The processes would involve the focused
occurrence of kinetic energies such as the movement of doorknobs and light
switches and the repetitive sounds and sights within stairwells or hallways.
All of these phenomena have a singular similarity in that they occur in a
small space with a temporal history of hundreds or thousands of repetitions
of the same sequence. This process might involve a discontinuity in some
characteristic of time such that all of the events that have occurred in
that space are integrated intermittently to produce a force sufficient to
affect the manner whose changes in space over time have been very
redundant." - Certainly "new" information to mainstream physicists.

The P&K article was not thoroughly framed by describing the electromagnetic,
measured surroundings on the earth and the known measured effects on human
brain. I did not notice any mention of blinded and double-blinded
experimentation, although that ought to be routine in parapsychology.
Neither any discussion about trying to separate between physical and
only-in-the-head occurrences. I think that would be the most important thing
in evaluating all possibly physical cases.

I personally can accept any explanation to hauntigs and poltergeists. But I
do not accept the geological-electromagnetic explanation before it is
thoroughly verified with measuring results and statistical calculations.

I checked with Google if there would be any criticisms of the P&K article in
the web. Did not find criticisms, only positive references, and especially
skeptics were fond of Persinger. It seems that parapsychology is
disintegrating internally in lack of critical peer review. There are so many
special disciplines that would be needed, that the knowledge is too thin
inside parapsychology.

Regards,

Olavi