Seems that Craig Dilworth might agree - that parapsychology is
more `scientific' than psychology or psychiatry (both being
non-sciences in my book)

Review
http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=4256&cn=394

`The Metaphysics of Science - An Account of Modern Science in
Terms of Principles, Laws and Theories' - by Craig Dilworth

Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/140206327X/themetapsycholog

Ray

Dear Olavi,


> > Pulling to the extend of beyond the range of Hooke's law. Yes, it
> would be interesting to encourage 'spoon benders' to try other means
> of deformation such as pulling or pressing.
>
> > Yes, and trying to press markings on the pieces with softer
> materials, aluminum coins or even with patterned plastic pieces.
> Fingerprints would be convincing.

absolutely!


> >  I see your point. Yet I have objections:
> >
> > 1. the method you suggest should result in scratches on the inside
> wall of the container as you accomplish the deformation by pressing
> the paperclips against the wall. The hardness of the metal is higher
> than the one of the container; it is easy to obtain scratches on such
> surfaces. However, no such scratches can be detected (at least on the
> photos; of course, this one would not be sufficient to determine:
>
> Actually the paperclips are softer than the glass according to the
> Mohs scale and wikipedia:
> 4 to 5 Iron
> 6 to 7 Glass, Vitreous pure silica
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness


I found same in the meantime. I was mistaken by the fact that some
vandals use to make figural scrates into the glass window panes of the
suburb in Vienna.
Yet I do not remember whether Hasted's sphere was of 'real' glass or
plexiglass the surface of which is definitely softer.


> You just gave a very important point. That is checking for microscopic
> markings and traces revealing what has happened with the pieces.
> Investigating the fracture surfaces and so on.


ought to be done ...


> > 2. 'your' method will work as soon as the sphere is, say, half-way
> filled, but ...
>
> No problem. You can turn the sphere so that the hole is down.


your point is taken


> Returning to the photo of the sphere. You can notice that there are
> hooks in the middle parts of the scrunch and the twisted ends are
> protruding out, revealing the method of accomplishing the scrunch. If
> the free ends of the twists are very short, it is worth checking if
> there are traces of tools there, pliers markings for example.

yes, this is a very good idea.

Unfortunately, at this point in time I have no idea in whose custody
that sphere and everything else Hasted has left behind are kept after
his passing.  I'll try to find out ...


Best,
Peter

--
================================================================
Prof. Peter  MULACZ
  >> PSI  WIEN <<
================================================================
WWW:            http://parapsychologie.info/
                  http://parapsychologie.ac.at/
                  http://zugun.parapsychologie.info
                  http://stigmatisation.parapsychologie.info
                  http://franz-anton-mesmer.parapsychologie.info
                  http://lambert-binder.parapsychologie.info
E-mail:         peter.mulacz@...
                  peter.mulacz@...
Phone:          +43 1 4058335
SnailMail:      Hernalser  Hauptstrasse  38
                  A-1170  WIEN/VIENNA
                  AUSTRIA
================================================================

Dear Peter,

> Do you read German? I might have a spare copy (I need to
> check it, no promise at this point in time) which I could
> send you. Pls provide me your postal address (off-list).


Yes, I read German. Thank you for trying to find the book for me.


> Pulling to the extend of beyond the range of Hooke's
> law. Yes, it would be interesting to encourage 'spoon
> benders' to try other means of deformation such as
> pulling or pressing.


Yes, and trying to press markings on the pieces with softer materials,
aluminum coins or even with patterned plastic pieces. Fingerprints would be
convincing.


>> Very simple. First you straighten the paperclips leaving a hook
>> in one end. Then you push in one paperclip or possibly
>> two twined around each other through the hole. Then
>> you push two paperclips in, grasp the former paperclips
>> with the hooks, pull them tightly against the wall
>> and twine the ends around each other. When you repeat the
>> last step many times, then you have a scrunch accomplished.

> I see your point. Yet I have objections:

> 1. the method you suggest should result in scratches on the
> inside wall of the container as you accomplish the
> deformation by pressing the paperclips against the wall. The
> hardness of the metal is higher than the one of the container;
> it is easy to obtain scratches on such surfaces. However, no
>such scratches can be detected (at least on the photos; of course,
> this one would not be sufficient to determine:
>
http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/images/3851671112/sr=1-1/qid=1211418911/ref=dp_o\
therviews_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&img=1&qid=1211418911&sr=1-1).
> I will supply you with a better one which I'll not attach to a
> public posting due to copyright issues.


Thank you for the high quality photo. Actually the paperclips are softer
than the glass according to the Mohs scale and wikipedia:
4 to 5 Iron
6 to 7 Glass, Vitreous pure silica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness


Unalloyed soft steel is practically as hard as "iron" in the table, so that
it is no wonder there are no visible scratches.


You just gave a very important point. That is checking for microscopic
markings and traces revealing what has happened with the pieces.
Investigating the fracture surfaces and so on.

> 2. 'your' method will work as soon as the sphere is, say,
> half-way filled, but how should it work with the very first
> paperclips inserted there that simply fall to the bottom of
> the container, resting there way out of reach of your hook ...

No problem. You can turn the sphere so that the hole is down.


Returning to the photo of the sphere. You can notice that there are hooks in
the middle parts of the scrunch and the twisted ends are protruding out,
revealing the method of accomplishing the scrunch. If the free ends of the
twists are very short, it is worth checking if there are traces of tools
there, pliers markings for example.

Yours,
Olavi

Hi Olavi,

I reply to this one first.  (To the PMB-discussion I'll reply in the
evening when I am at home.)


>> Changing topics, I just realize that I did not receive my latest
>> posting to the group.  This is very strange as you apparently
>> receive group messages.
>
> A quote from an other group:
>
> "I have gotten a few frantic emails from people who thought they
> weren't in the group anymore, lol.
> So, no,it isn't ur puter, it's Yahell."


Apparently, everything is o.k. again at my end.  I am uncertain
whether to put the blame on Yahoo/Yahell ;-)  It might very well be
that my spamfilter has intercepted that posting.  I am used to
checking the contents of my spamfilter regularly, however, given the
amount of spams it could easily happen that a 'good' e-mail is
overlooked and subsequently automatically deleted.
My spamfilter allows for 50 entries each for the white list and the
black list, and both lists are already full ...


Best,
Peter

--
================================================================
Prof. Peter  MULACZ
   >> PSI  WIEN <<
================================================================
WWW:            http://parapsychologie.info/
                   http://parapsychologie.ac.at/
                   http://zugun.parapsychologie.info
                   http://stigmatisation.parapsychologie.info
                   http://franz-anton-mesmer.parapsychologie.info
                   http://lambert-binder.parapsychologie.info
E-mail:         peter.mulacz@...
                   peter.mulacz@...
Phone:          +43 1 4058335
SnailMail:      Hernalser  Hauptstrasse  38
                   A-1170  WIEN/VIENNA
                   AUSTRIA
================================================================

Dear Olavi,

> > Do you have any suggestions what could be done  from a metallurgical
> viewpoint (and has not been done before, e.g. as described by Berendt
> -- whom I mentioned -- in his book)?
>
> Unfortunately I have not possibility to get the book in near future.

Do you read German?  I might have a spare copy (I need to check it, no
promise at this point in time) which I could send you.  Pls provide me
your postal address (off-list).

> But there are many suggestions I can make if needed.  One ought to use
> carefully planned and prepared materials and test pieces. I used in
> some pieces austenitic stainless steel, as did also the Frenchmen. The
> result was very interesting: hardness testing revealed that there was
> cold-working martensite formed, typical quantity corresponding
> cold-working in room temperature. I also used thin and very hard
> pieces from saw blades. They behave like springs, becoming straight
> after bending even much with force. One of the boys could not bend the
> pieces at all but the other succeeded, giving valuable information:
> there was no springing effect. The piece could be seen bend a little
> between his hands, and it was bent just that much when he gave it to me.

Interesting!

> All measurements that were done with my pieces gave the same answer:
> the bending was as if bending by force in room temperature. The only
> thing that was paranormal was the method how the bending was
> accomplished. But there is some evidence of anomalous results here and
> there.

Agreed

> Hasted used very brittle material at least once and the pieces were
> bent successfully. But apparently he could not appreciate the result
> enough. The same with a spoon softened into plastic state by Geller.
> Hasted understood it was very convincing to have a spoon as soft as
> bubble-gum. But he did not realize what a golden piece he had in his
> hand, because the breaking end was _necked_. Steel does not neck in
> bending. For necking there is needed tensile testing. I doubt if
> anybody can draw apart the ends of a steel spoon by direct pulling.

Pulling to the extend of beyond the range of Hooke's law.
Yes, it would be interesting to encourage 'spoon benders' to try other
means of deformation such as pulling or pressing.

> >> Hasted was also too gullible in many situations in my opinion.
> >> The glass spheres with the paperclip scrunches are a sad history.
> >> Looking the pictures carefully it easy to see how the scrunches
> were made.
>
> > Yet when you take the pictures and his narration together it's a
> better story ...
>
> No, the scrunches cannot be saved by any means. Nobody saw how they
> were formed. They could not be made without a hole in the sphere.
> Somebody showed Hasted how they could be made, but he insisted the boy
> was working paranormally because he did it too rapidly.
>
> > However, how -- do you think -- were the deformations of the
> paperclips accomplished fraudulently?
>
> Very simple. First you straighten the paperclips leaving a hook in one
> end. Then you push in one paperclip or possibly two twined around each
> other through the hole. Then you push two paperclips in, grasp the
> former paperclips with the hooks, pull them tightly against the wall
> and twine the ends around each other. When you repeat the last step
> many times, then you have a scrunch accomplished.

I see your point.  Yet I have objections:

    1. the method you suggest should result in scratches on the inside
       wall of the container as you accomplish the deformation by
       pressing the paperclips against the wall.  The hardness of the
       metal is higher than the one of the container; it is easy to
       obtain scratches on such surfaces. However, no such scratches can
       bee detected (at least on the photos; of course, this one would
       not be sufficient to dtermine:
      
http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/images/3851671112/sr=1-1/qid=1211418911/ref=dp_o\
therviews_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&img=1&qid=1211418911&sr=1-1).
       I will supply you with a better one which I'll not attach to a
       public posting due to copyright issues.

    2. 'your' method will work as soon as the sphere is, say, half-way
       filled, but how should it work with the very first paperclips
       inserted there that simply fall to the bottom of the container,
       resting there way out of reach of your hook ...


> I have contacted some American and Australian spoon-benders, but they
> do not answer.

Too bad!


Yours,
Peter

--
================================================================
Prof. Peter  MULACZ
  >> PSI  WIEN <<
================================================================
WWW:            http://parapsychologie.info/
                  http://parapsychologie.ac.at/
                  http://zugun.parapsychologie.info
                  http://stigmatisation.parapsychologie.info
                  http://franz-anton-mesmer.parapsychologie.info
                  http://lambert-binder.parapsychologie.info
E-mail:         peter.mulacz@...
                  peter.mulacz@...
Phone:          +43 1 4058335
SnailMail:      Hernalser  Hauptstrasse  38
                  A-1170  WIEN/VIENNA
                  AUSTRIA
================================================================

Please, find below the last article of Victor Zammit in answer to
a "new Houdini" in search of fame on the expense of the others...

In case you never heard about the physical medium David Thompson,
here the web site of Silver Cord Circle (David Thompson's circle)
http://www.silvercordcircle.com/

My husband and myself have attended a materialization séance with
this medium at Glasgow last year, and the father of my husband fully
materialized and talked to his son and to myself. He embrassed my
husband and then touched my hair while he was talking to me and asked
me to looked after his son. In this discussion with my husband John,
he talked about private subjects concerning John's mother that I was
not aware, and that has been confirmed by my husband.

At this séance, I have also asked if we could talked to the American
Thomas Edison. After about 20 seconds of waiting - the time that
principal guide William asked in the cabinet where the vortex was
created to find Thomas Edison - Thomas Edison came in the cabinet,
and then fully materialized he walked toward my husband and me. Then
standing at few centimeters from both of us, he continued a technical
discussion on some device we are building. Discussion that had
already began in our home with him. The medium arriving from Sydney
(Australia) was not aware of this.

---*******---

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dick.htm

A PERSONAL ATTACK ON VICTOR
I received just two emails informing me that someone is attacking my
credibility as an investigator – I looked up the URL they sent and
yes, some misguided 'Spiritualist' is going off his head.

But what is very peculiar is the attacker – let's call him 'Simon
Dick' - I will not fall for his trick to exploit the issue and give
him free publicity by using his real name. This 'Dick' did not have
the courage to send me the scurrilous article attacking me.

It is cowardice pushed to its extreme for this `Dick' to be trying to
disseminate anti-Victor Zammit pernicious propaganda and not have the
decency, the honesty and the integrity to send the article to me
himself.

Further, this unqualified and uninformed 'Dick' misleads the reader
by trying to make himself come across as a smartass expert litigation
lawyer and to come across as an expert in scientific method. I was
informed the attacker is neither. He is reportedly a failed small-
time publisher; a non-entity trying to bolster up a flagging
readership before his last few readers abandon him altogether. He
sends the dirty article to others with an established readership
hoping to steal some of their readers – tricky but not nice.

The main thrust of his complaint is that Alan Crossley did not
materialize for the Circle of the Silver Cord. But, we notice very
carefully, this complainant, 'Dick' acknowledges that voices were
recorded. This means that the Circle produced evidence that some
entity was speaking.

On what grounds do I believe that the entity was Alan Crossley?

Firstly, the entity himself claimed to be Alan Crossley. That was
noted with great care.

Secondly a member of Stewart Alexander's Circle who claimed to have
been a very close friend of Alan says he felt the contact was
genuine "His voice on hearing it sounded like his earthly one ..."

Thirdly there were two important witnesses at the seance who felt the
contact was genuine. What we did not reveal to the world before –
only to a few people - is that at the materializations session, the
grandson of Helen Duncan, David Duncan, was there present with us.
That is the reason that Alan Crossley and Helen Duncan and Helen
Duncan's guide Albert all materialized.

David Duncan's attestation can be read on the Circle of the Silver
Cord website. He writes:

" I will not go into much more detail as although there were others
present, what was said to me was of a personal nature. Needless to
say I have no doubt whatsoever that this was indeed my Grandmother –
known throughout the world as one of the greatest and best known
physical mediums, that gave her life, so that we might practice these
natural gifts given to us without fear or malice."

Also present was Christine Morgan Spiritualist Sanctuary Perth whose
attestation can be read on the Circle website. Christine's father was
a friend of Alan Crossley. She writes:

" Alan Crossley a great physical mediumship researcher and a friend
of my father's also came through that evening, he greeted me
personally, spoke about my dad several times, and shook my hand, felt
my face and stroked my hair, this causing me to be very moved."

The members of the Circle of the Silver Cord do not particularly care
who comes through. They do not ask who they want to materialize –
that is left up to William at his own absolute discretion. The medium
offers the spirits the ectoplasm to materialize. They can call
themselves whoever they like.

For myself whether or not the spirits are who they say they are, is
not all that important. But I go on the totality of the evidence.

The fact is that we have definitive evidence of spirit activity and
we at least have the spirit voices as hard core substantive evidence
of their materializations. And the previous mentioned tape voice
correlations I made show at least there is a prima facie case made
out that the voices are all different and different from David
Thompson's.

What is most unfair about 'Dick's' article is the lie that the ONLY
evidence the Circle has produced of the afterlife is voices in the
dark. Anyone who seriously read reports by myself, Montague Keen, the
Zerdin Phenomenal Magazine, the Circle website would know that we
have had:

* repeated levitations sometimes with David speaking from the ceiling
* matter through matter demonstrations
* the sound of materialization and de-materialization
* extended trumpet phenomena
* musical instruments played high up near the ceiling
* the medium's gag being dematerialized and rematerialized
* curtains opened and closed by materialized hands
* hands large and fairly small fingers visible in the light of a
luminous plaque
* apport phenomena
* verified signatures of spirit guests written on paper
* ectoplasm seen and photographed in red light
* materialized guests shaking hands with sitters who were able to
feel the size of their hands
* the sound of materialized feet walking across the floor and in some
cases the feel of them treading on toes
* lots of touch of materialized adults, children and at least two
dogs.
* several spirit voices - and David Thompson's voice - being heard AT
THE SAME TIME conversing to each other.
* William and David counting simultaneously
* And most telling of all, the Circle has had more than 90 people
reunited with loved ones whom they identified as giving them evidence
of their identity and up to date involvement in their lives.

It has to be noted that the Circle only puts a small proportion of
the taped evidence on the internet.

In addition many of the people sitting with the Circle are mental
mediums themselves and have received cross-validation before during
and after sittings.

For over twelve months I challenged any skeptic around the world-
especially those in the U.S., UK, Australia, Italy, Germany, Sweden
and Denmark - for half a million dollars to show that the evidence
the Circle was getting was not produced by genuine physical
mediumship.

Understandably, the hard core materialist skeptics knowing that some
of the Circle members are professional empiricists and at all times
and operate with due diligence, would not dare challenge the evidence
produced every week – they knew they'd get their fingers burnt and
lose *half a million dollars themselves when they failed.

Here are the main issues raised by the uninformed complainant 'Dick':

1# that the standard of David Thompson's mediumship is not up to that
of physical mediums of the past.

Victor: Montague Keen, when he first investigated David Thompson,
stated that the controls on David were far in excess of those used on
famous mediums Eva C or Jack Webber.

To my knowledge, David Thompson is the only materialization medium to
allow independent highly qualified investigators to investigate his
materialization mediumship every week for over fifteen months.

I always stated that we all want to have the best evidence, but we
have to deal with what we get. The suggested alternative by `Dick' –
is to slam the door shut on those from the otherside who are trying
to do their best to communicate with us given the restricted
circumstances.

We here are in no position to unilaterally demand how we want things
done from the otherside – they have limitations themselves. The way
the Circle of the Silver Cord does it is to have patience, lots of
patience when the other side says they are working very hard to
improve conditions. I never ever stated that we have the ideal
physical conditions – and repeated there is always room for
improvement. In fact, precedent has it that at least one other well
known medium in England had to wait seven years to get any results.

The Circle has had one year and three months of experimentation. And
we are so thankful for the hitherto brilliant results we attained
particularly in public séances so far.

And given the state of the world and the urgent need for any
confirmation of the existence of an afterlife it would be highly
irresponsible and professionally negligent to suggest that we should
keep quiet about the evidence we have been getting until we have
the "absolute proof". Positive feedback confirms that too many people
have repeatedly been helped.


2# that Victor gives weekly reports on David Thompson and alleged
communications from Houdini, Conan Doyle and Winston Churchill.

Victor: two serious errors that show 'Dick' to be a very sloppy,
negligent investigator: first, I have done just a couple of updates
on the seances in the last FIVE months – NOT weekly as I used to.

Secondly, I have never ever mentioned Churchill in my weekly reports.
Wake up 'DICK'!

3# that Victor's investigative methodology and qualifications are
questionable.

Victor: In the two years – which includes some fifteen months of
weekly careful investigations of David Thompson's
materializations, 'Dick' or his friends never at any time ever
complained about my scientific methodology. If this Dick were truly
concerned, he would have responded to my call for anyone to show
which potential intervening variables I was not controlling. Whilst
other scientists and empiricists totally agreed with my methodology,
no skeptic, no debunker, no scientist and certainly no 'Dick' ever
stated WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY the scientific methodology I was
using was not correct.

3# that Victor's description of himself as a writer and researcher on
the empirical evidence for the afterlife is ambiguous.

Victor: What is so ambiguous about `empirical'? For the informed, it
is very easy to understand. `Empirical' at university level relates
to any experiment which strictly adheres to scientific method. It
would be fundamentally wrong to have an a priori `theory or system' –
you have a hypothesis to test and only scientific method to work
with. 'Dick' shows he is a layperson erroneously relying on
dictionary definitions and a misplaced ego!.

4.# Since David Thompson's phenomena are produced in the dark the
primary sense being relied on is hearing and thus the evidence is not
empirical because it is not observable by the senses.

Victor: Here is a critical issue by someone who appears to use
dictionary definitions as distinct what is professionally taught at
universities. By analogy, if 'Dick's' mother was physically alive and
was in total darkness and had two minutes to talk to this 'Dick' –
can he say, "no it's not my mother because I cannot see her?" Even
though she would be sitting next to him?

Some spirits also bring with them a distinctive smell. In the case of
the entity which claimed it was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, there was
physical contact with him. Just because one or two of the senses are
absent does not mean the experiment would not be valid. In scientific
method everything – all intervening variables are noted with due
care. I have been stating that repeatability, objectivity and
empiricism is what we have: a formula is followed, it is repeated
over space and time, keeping variables constant and we get the same
results, i.e. materializations. And 'Dick' can misinterpret, lie,
cheat till he's blue in the face, he's not going to change that, ever.

5#. Victor is basing his assumptions purely upon a voice in the dark
which claims to be Houdini or Conan Doyle and this is ridiculous and
unscientific.

Victor: Here this 'Dick' shows how `ridiculous' he himself is – and
shows his real malicious intent to denigrate by trying to come across
as all-knowing about evidence. Why? I am basing my conclusions on the
totality of what I have observed and experienced and the credibility
of the witnesses I interviewed. All extraneous variables are
immediately relevant: voices, peculiar smells (one observer, Camilla,
a guest from Sweden, reported smelling tobacco when Conan Doyle went
near her) – and all known idiosyncrasies. And 'Dick' omitted to state
what I stated many times over the last two years: that while spirits
are definitely coming through, we are not in a position
to `guarantee' that those who come through are who they claim to be.
Again, back to 'Dick's' mum in darkness: he can say yes, it is his
mother without doubt, but he would never be able to use science to
show that she is who she claims to be.

6# Victor should know that only relevant evidence is admissible and
then goes on to try to lecture me on the rules of evidence.

Victor: So, here we go again, this 'Dick' is trying to play the
expert litigation lawyer – citing legal dictionary definitions. Of
course, I'm not here to educate this uninformed 'Dick', but to show
that he is fundamentally wrong. Is the fact that voices are produced
not relevant? Are the messages we get from loved ones not relevant?

7# The recordings of the alledged spirits do not prove or disprove
anything.

My wife and I witnessed more than forty reunions – loved ones from
the otherside with their loved ones sitting in the séance room.

I heard people crying in the séance room when they were told things
that only they could know.

I heard my own wife's father coming through and relating information
no one on earth knew about except my wife – and

handing her a piece of paper with his confirmed signature.

I heard Gordon Higginson correcting Ken Pretty in New Zealand about
where in fact they met last time when they were in England.

I also witnessed other stunning evidence that could not have been
concocted by anyone. Is this 'Dick' trying to negate all this by his
stupid uninformed conclusions?

8.# 'Dick' attempts to lecture on scientific method.

Here again this uninformed Dick is misleading the reader. It is NOT
correct to state that scientific method is the process by which
scientists … There are lawyer-empiricists – as I am - who are NOT
scientists but have a major in Scientific Method at university as an
adjunct to a major in Psychology. So when this uninformed Dick tries
to mislead the reader, the onus is on this Dick to tell us what's his
authority for that. Failing that, this Dick shows he's making it up.
Don't waste our precious time, DICK!


9.# That I have not produced any evidence for materialization having
taken place.

'Dick' does not put his money where his mouth is. I offered $500,000
to anyone, including this 'Dick', to show that what we are doing,
producing objective, repeatable evidence is not valid. But *one
condition was that if the challenger failed, he would have to hand
over the $500,000 to us. Yet of the vehemently negative critics, not
even this vociferous 'Dick', had the testes, the courage, the
motivation, the stomach to take us on. If he were definitively sure,
he would have made a quick half a million dollars. But, this
uninformed negative Spiritualist showed that he KNOWS that we are
producing hard core objective and repeatable evidence. Put up or shut
up 'Dick'!


10. # The voice of Alan Crossley was different from his voice while
alive.

Here, 'Dick' continues to go from bad to worse – he shows more
ignorance of basic materialization. The voice in materializations
will sometimes sound different to voices when the person was alive,
particularly for an inexperienced communicator. Each visitor from the
afterlife has different skills in vocalizing. Gordon Higginson comes
across clear as crystal but some others sometimes try to speak but
with no clear articulation. Some spirits try to vocalize but abandon
the attempt. I am on record for stating in the past that Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle bitterly complained that speaking during materialization
is 'like speaking with your head underwater.' So the professional
empiricist will not use the voice as the sole criterion – there are
other critical relevant empirical issues to take into account.
But 'Dick' has not experienced even one materialization with David
Thompson.

As to 'Dick' asking me to ask Alan Crossley some questions. No, I
will NOT deal with nor negotiate with proven cowards, liars and
amateurs. The whole of this 'Dick's' article is highly venomous, vile
and scurrilous and full of lies. It is a personal attack on me.

The Circle of the Silver Cord is not interested in debating the
evidence- they put it out there honestly and in good faith to assist
people who are searching and to encourage those who are genuine to
find their own evidence.

Sure we would all like to return to days of Helen Duncan and Alex
Harris but writing negative uniformed attacks full of venom and
malice is not helping that to happen – in fact this 'Dick' is
exacerbating the huge problem in Spiritualism – bitter division.

It is malicious conduct in the extreme and surely as most of us
know 'Dick' or whatever his name is, one day you will pay the price
for your willful venom and for disseminating darkness, guaranteed!

I suggest that any reader who has been misled by Dick's attacks read
the testimony of witnesses who were actually present at one of
David's séances and make up their own minds:

Ken Pretty's audio testimony
http://www.victorzammit.com/audio/kenpretty29.10.06.mp3

Camilla Persson's audio testimony
http://www.victorzammit.com/audio/camillaperson15.10.06.mp3

Dr Ken S. audio testimony
http://www.victorzammit.com/audio/ken1.mp3
http://www.victorzammit.com/audio/ken2ectoplasm.mp3
http://www.victorzammit.com/audio/ken6healing.mp3
http://www.victorzammit.com/audio/ken7importance.mp3

Wendy Phillips' written report
http://www.victorzammit.com/articlesdavid/wendyphillipsreport.htm

Karen Ellis' written report
http://www.victorzammit.com/articlesdavid/karenellis.htm

Violet Eccles written report
http://www.victorzammit.com/articlesdavid/davidinmelbourne.html

Victor Zammit's video testimony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nPe7vK8kCg%20


Victor Zammit
20th May 2008


.

Hi Peter,

> Changing topics, I just realize that I did not receive my latest posting
> to the group.  This is very strange as you apparently receive group
> messages.

A quote from an other group:

"I have gotten a few frantic emails from people who thought they weren't in
the group anymore, lol.
So, no,it isn't ur puter, it's Yahell."

Best,
Olavi

Hi Peter,

> Do you have any suggestions what could be done
> from a metallurgical viewpoint (and has not been
> done before, e.g. as described by Berendt --
> whom I mentioned -- in his book)?

Unfortunately I have not possibility to get the book in near future. But
there are many suggestions I can make if needed.

One ought to use carefully planned and prepared materials and test pieces. I
used in some pieces austenitic stainless steel, as did also the Frenchmen.
The result was very interesting: hardness testing revealed that there was
cold-working martensite formed, typical quantity corresponding cold-working
in room temperature. I also used thin and very hard pieces from saw blades.
They behave like springs, becoming straight after bending even much with
force. One of the boys could not bend the pieces at all but the other
succeeded, giving valuable information: there was no springing effect. The
piece could be seen bend a little between his hands, and it was bent just
that much when he gave it to me.

There could be used very brittle pieces and also very tough pieces. If the
brittle pieces can be bent much and if the tough pieces break without much
bending, then we have extremely convincing pieces in our hands! And they can
be checked and tested as much as is necessary. If the experimenting is
successful it is possible to get as convincing evidence as for example two
wooden rings of different tree species put together as a chain. The
cold-working martensite found in the thick end of a test bar by the
Frenchmen is practically impossible to produce even with best tools.

All measurements that were done with my pieces gave the same answer: the
bending was as if bending by force in room temperature. The only thing that
was paranormal was the method how the bending was accomplished. But there is
some evidence of anomalous results here and there.

Hasted used very brittle material at least once and the pieces were bent
successfully. But apparently he could not appreciate the result enough. The
same with a spoon softened into plastic state by Geller. Hasted understood
it was very convincing to have a spoon as soft as bubble-gum. But he did not
realize what a golden piece he had in his hand, because the breaking end was
_necked_. Steel does not neck in bending. For necking there is needed
tensile testing. I doubt if anybody can draw apart the ends of a steel spoon
by direct pulling.


>> Hasted was also too gullible in many situations in my opinion.
>> The glass spheres with the paperclip scrunches are a sad history.
>> Looking the pictures carefully it easy to see how the scrunches
>> were made.

> Yet when you take the pictures and his narration together it's a
> better story ...

No, the scrunches cannot be saved by any means. Nobody saw how they were
formed. They could not be made without a hole in the sphere. Somebody showed
Hasted how they could be made, but he insisted the boy was working
paranormally because he did it too rapidly.


> However, how -- do you think -- were the deformations
> of the paperclips accomplished fraudulently?


Very simple. First you straighten the paperclips leaving a hook in one end.
Then you push in one paperclip or possibly two twined around each other
through the hole. Then you push two paperclips in, grasp the former
paperclips with the hooks, pull them tightly against the wall and twine the
ends around each other. When you repeat the last step many times, then you
have a scrunch accomplished.


>> The very important article with strong evidence is: 'C. Crussard,
>> J. Bouvaist: Étude de quelques déformations et transformations
>> apparemment anormales de métaux. Mémoires Scientifiques
>> Revue Métallurgie - Fevrier 1978'

>> There is also another less formal but good article in a French
>> magazine: 'François de Closets: Les pemières expériences
>> scientifiques sur "l'effet Uri Geller". Sciences et Avenir 1975,
>> novembre'

> Both articles, I must confessed, went unnoticed by me. Well,
> I should add, better late than never; so, may I politely ask you,
> if it is not too much of a burden for you, to kindly e-mail me
> scans of these two articles off-list?


I will send them to you with pleasure. Unfortunately I do not have a scanner
and all my friend's scanners happen to be inoperative at the moment. Next I
will test taking photos and at least send ordinary copies by snailmail
later.


>>> I should add that there is one elderly gentleman in Germany,
>>> Reiner Höhndorf, who successfully runs courses in PMB.

>> Ok, I am waiting for the results and scientific articles.

> Hope I don't dissappoint you too much: his aim is rather
> the deomstration, not so much the investigation. And so
> far I was not able to find one interested scientist within
> the respective fields who would be prepared to start an
> investigation.

Well, that was a joke by me, because I could imagine what the situation is.
I have contacted some American and Australian spoon-benders, but they do not
answer.


Best,
Olavi

Hi Olavi,

a quick amendment.

This is the book I mentioned:

Berendt, H. Ch.:
Jenseits des Möglichen? Metallbiegen durch seelische Kraft.
Einführung in die Psychokinese. Mit dokumentarischen Fotos und mit einem
Originalbeitrag Von Prof. F. S. Rothschild.
Freiburg i. Br., Basel, Wien: Herder 1986. Herderbücherei 1225.
ISBN 345108225X

(In German only.)

Changing topics, I just realize that I did not receive my latest posting
to the group.  This is very strange as you apparently receive group
messages.

Best,
Peter

--
================================================================
Prof. Peter  MULACZ
  >> PSI  WIEN <<
================================================================
WWW:            http://parapsychologie.info/
                  http://parapsychologie.ac.at/
                  http://zugun.parapsychologie.info
                  http://stigmatisation.parapsychologie.info
                  http://franz-anton-mesmer.parapsychologie.info
                  http://lambert-binder.parapsychologie.info
E-mail:         peter.mulacz@...
                  peter.mulacz@...
Phone:          +43 1 4058335
SnailMail:      Hernalser  Hauptstrasse  38
                  A-1170  WIEN/VIENNA
                  AUSTRIA
================================================================

Hi Olavi,

  > Such a good situation you have in Austria! In Finland we have only
skeptics ruling strongly everywhere in the scientific community.

Come on, the situation in Austria is by far not that good -- it appears,
man tends to see only the positive if viewing from outside and gets
envious.

  >> I disagree insofar as I believe the late British physicist John
Hasted has done a good job in investigating PMB. See his book "The Metal
Benders." London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980. There is also a
documentary "Spoon Bending" by Adrin Neatrour (Cincle Cut Motion Pictures).

  > Yes, I know the book. I bought it soon after it was published. There
is much valuable information in the book, but it is a typical
investigation by a physicist, leaving important metallurgical
possibilities unexplored and losing unnecessarily great quantities of
information.

Do you have any suggestions what could be done from a metallurgical
viewpoint (and has not been done before, e.g. as described by Berendt --
whom I mentioned -- in his book)?
I gave one of my spoons to a metallurgist of the University of Leoben
<www.unileoben.ac.at> with the disappointing result that I neither got
the promised report of his investigation nor my spoon back.

  > Hasted was also too gullible in many situations in my opinion. The
glass spheres with the paperclip scrunches are a sad history. Looking
the pictures carefully it easy to see how the scrunches were made.

Yet when you take the pictures and his narration together it's a better
story ...
However, how -- do you think -- were the deformations of the paperclips
accomplished fraudulently?

  >  I have also received the booklet 'Bernhard Wälti: Die
Silvio-Protokolle 1976-1977'

Me too.  I was friendly with Wälti who died last year aged 81.
There is a CD out with all the Silvio material ==>
http://www.silvio.info/PsiMain.htm

  >> Could you provide sources for that french metallurgist?

  > J. Bouvaist, he was already mentioned in the Beloff article.

Oh, that's him!

  > The very important article with strong evidence is: 'C. Crussard, J.
Bouvaist: Étude de quelques déformations et transformations apparemment
anormales de métaux. Mémoires Scientifiques Revue Métallurgie - Fevrier
1978'

  > There is also another less formal but good article in a French
magazine: 'François de Closets: Les pemières expériences scientifiques
sur "l'effet
Uri Geller". Sciences et Avenir 1975, novembre'

Both articles, I must confessed, went unnoticed by me.  Well, I should
add, better late than never; so, may I politely ask you, if it is not
too much of a burden for you, to kindly e-mail me scans of these two
articles off-list?

  >> I investigated several children at that time, ...

  > Very interesting. I guess that is why you "believe" in the phenomenon
like me.

Sure. We are on the same page in this respect.

  > Many parapsychologists do not believe.

Very unfortunately so.

  >> I should add that there is one elderly gentleman in Germany, Reiner
Höhndorf, who successfully rans courses in PMB.

Meant to read "runs", sorry for the typo. (Not my fist and probably not
my last.)

  > Ok, I am waiting for the results and scientific articles.

Hope I don't dissappoint you too much:  his aim is rather the
deomstration, not so much the investigation.  And so far I was not able
to find one interested scientist within the respective fields who would
be prepared to start an investigation.


Best,
Peter
--
================================================================
Prof. Peter  MULACZ
  >> PSI  WIEN <<
================================================================
WWW:            http://parapsychologie.info/
                  http://parapsychologie.ac.at/
                  http://zugun.parapsychologie.info
                  http://stigmatisation.parapsychologie.info
                  http://franz-anton-mesmer.parapsychologie.info
                  http://lambert-binder.parapsychologie.info
E-mail:         peter.mulacz@...
                  peter.mulacz@...
Phone:          +43 1 4058335
SnailMail:      Hernalser  Hauptstrasse  38
                  A-1170  WIEN/VIENNA
                  AUSTRIA
================================================================

Hi Peter!

Thank you for your kind answer. I checked the fine sites you gave in the end
of your message. Such a good situation you have in Austria! In Finland we
have only skeptics ruling strongly everywhere in the scientific community.

> It is difficult to urge mainstream scientists to
> cooperate with parapsychologists.


Certainly it is so. And there is not enough money to make them to cooperate.
But it is possible to ask for informal information, because it is certainly
possible to discuss the problems with somebody in relevant scientific
fields. That can be done even in scientific discussion forums in Internet,
without disclosing the aim of the questions. It is only question of general
scientific knowledge, that can be found everywhere in the literature.
Parapsychologists already use widely statistical methods, for example.


> I disagree insofar as I believe the late British
> physicist John Hasted has done a good job in
> investigating PMB. See his book "The Metal
> Benders." London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
> 1980. There is also a documentary "Spoon
> Bending" by Adrin Neatrour (Cincle Cut Motion
> Pictures). The text of Hasted's book used to be
> available on-line.

Yes, I know the book. I bought it soon after it was published. There is much
valuable information in the book, but it is a typical investigation by a
physicist, leaving important metallurgical possibilities unexplored and
losing unnecessarily great quantities of information.

Hasted was also too gullible in many situations in my opinion. The glass
spheres with the paperclip scrunches are a sad history. Looking the pictures
carefully it easy to see how the scrunches were made.

> Moreover, the phenomenon evoked widespread
> interest in the parapsychological community, see
> for example
> http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/belofb.htm.


Yes, I have that article in my personal files. A very good summary of the
history of PMB. I have also received the booklet 'Bernhard Wälti: Die
Silvio-Protokolle 1976-1977' from Eberhard Bauer, IGPP. But after all, I
think PMB has not been appreciated enough. Gathering information and doing
experiments in the years 1974-84 would have yielded fine results if done
more effectively. Now there is needed a new start, and that seems to be very
improbable.

> Could you provide sources for that french
> metallurgist?


J. Bouvaist, he was already mentioned in the Beloff article. His boss was C.
Crussard, the director. I do not know his studying direction. The very
important article with strong evidence is: 'C. Crussard, J. Bouvaist: Étude
de quelques déformations et transformations apparemment anormales de métaux.
Mémoires Scientifiques Revue Métallurgie - Fevrier 1978'


There is also another less formal but good article in a French magazine:
'François de Closets: Les pemières expériences scientifiques sur "l'effet
Uri Geller". Sciences et Avenir 1975, novembre'

> I investigated several children at that time,
> in particular a boy of 14 and a girl of
> sevenandhalf. For the latter, see
> http://parapsychologie.info/history/slides/21.htm .


Very interesting. I guess that is why you "believe" in the phenomenon like
me. Many parapsychologists do not believe.


>> When the metal bending is discussed now
>> much later, everybody remembers Uri Geller
>> but mini-Gellers are most often ignored.
>> Although their abilities are the most convincing
>> phenomenon to show that psi-phenomena can be real.


I regret my language error, I meant 'one of the most convincing', requiring
that one knows the evidence well enough.

>> Unfortunately the ignoring concerns also
>> the parapsychological community.

> In part, only.


I must agree now. I must also apologize that I have often a rather harsh
tone in my messages.


>> I should add that there is one elderly gentleman
>> in Germany, Reiner Höhndorf, who successfully
>> rans courses in PMB.

Ok, I am waiting for the results and scientific articles.


Best wishes,
Olavi

Hi Olavi!

  > Thank you, Peter Mulacz for the free summary of your paper about
physical mediumism: http://www.parapsych.org/papers/29.pdf .

With pleasure.

  > You write: "Taking into account the potential relevance of
(ostensible) phenomena of physical mediumism the present state of
affairs is a deplorable one. However, research in Paranormal Metal
Bending was a first little step in the right direction of reversing that
process."

  > I agree with you otherwise, but the Paranormal Metal Bending is a
disaster in my opinion. I have always wondered why parapsychologists do
not take enough advantage of what mainstream scientists already know.

It is difficult to urge mainstream scientists to cooperate with
parapsychologists.

  > There have been mainly physicists and scholars who have tried to
investigate the metal bending, with exceedingly poor results. As far as
I know, the only highly knowledgeable metallurgists were from France,
with very convincing results.

I disagree insofar as I believe the late British physicist John Hasted
has done a good job in investigating PMB.  See his book "The Metal
Benders." London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980.  There is also a
documentary "Spoon Bending" by Adrin Neatrour (Cincle Cut Motion
Pictures).  The text of Hasted's book used to be available on-line.
Moreover, the phenomenon evoked widespread interest in the
parapsychological community, see for example
http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/belofb.htm.

Could you provide sources for that french metallurgist?

  > There were many "mini-Gellers" in Finland in the year 1974.

There were many of these kids and adolescents all over the world; in
Austria we used to call them "Gellerini" -- I believe, it was the late
Hans Bender who introduced this nick.

  > As a young metallurgist I did experiments with two of them, boys aged
8 and 9 years. Beyond all reasonable doubt they could bend my specimens
paranormally.

I investigated several children at that time, in particular a boy of 14
and a girl of sevenandhalf.  For the latter, see
http://parapsychologie.info/history/slides/21.htm.

I also could -- kindly mediated by my late friend, Heinz Ch. Berendt
(see http://parapsychologie.info/hcb1.htm, in German) -- investigate the
Israeli psychic Rony (Ronny) Marcus who at that time (in the 1980ies)
showed 'genuine' phenomena, however, he started to mix them up with
stage magician tricks.  Now things have changed, during investigations
by Radin and Braude he did hardly, if ever, produce phenomena, just
tricks.  http://ronny-marcus.tripod.com/

  > When the metal bending is discussed now much later, everybody
remembers Uri Geller but mini-Gellers are most often ignored. Although
their abilities are the most convincing phenomenon to show that
psi-phenomena can be real.

Agreed.

  > Unfortunately the ignoring concerns also the parapsychological community.

In part, only.

I should add that there is one elderly gentleman in Germany, Reiner
Höhndorf, who successfully rans courses in PMB.


Best,
Peter

--
================================================================
Prof. Peter  MULACZ
  >> PSI  WIEN <<
================================================================
WWW:            http://parapsychologie.info/
                  http://parapsychologie.ac.at/
                  http://zugun.parapsychologie.info
                  http://stigmatisation.parapsychologie.info
                  http://franz-anton-mesmer.parapsychologie.info
                  http://lambert-binder.parapsychologie.info
E-mail:         peter.mulacz@...
                  peter.mulacz@...
Phone:          +43 1 4058335
SnailMail:      Hernalser  Hauptstrasse  38
                  A-1170  WIEN/VIENNA
                  AUSTRIA
================================================================

Hi all!

It is time to test whether this forum is still alive.

Thank you, Peter Mulacz for the free summary of your paper about physical
mediumism: http://www.parapsych.org/papers/29.pdf . You gave there your
email address, but I thought it is important to write also to a wider
audience.

You write: "Taking into account the potential relevance of (ostensible)
phenomena of physical mediumism the present state of affairs is a deplorable
one. However, research in Paranormal Metal Bending was a first little step
in the right direction of reversing that process."

I agree with you otherwise, but the Paranormal Metal Bending is a disaster
in my opinion. I have always wondered why parapsychologists do not take
enough advantage of what mainstream scientists already know. One of the best
examples is Michael Persinger, who has "invented" new physics and geology
with rather poor credentials. It is team work with different fields of
science that is needed.

There have been mainly physicists and scholars who have tried to investigate
the metal bending, with exceedingly poor results. As far as I know, the only
highly knowledgeable metallurgists were from France, with very convincing
results. Scholars are not able to analyze the physical world and physicists
cannot say so much about practical metallurgy, and both are not able to
appreciate the results which the Frenchmen have got. I am an engineer (MA)
in machine construction and metallurgy and know what I am talking about,
having read many discussions.

There were many "mini-Gellers" in Finland in the year 1974. As a young
metallurgist I did experiments with two of them, boys aged 8 and 9 years.
Beyond all reasonable doubt they could bend my specimens paranormally. I was
very astonished to notice that I was the _only_ person in Finland trying to
make some research of the phenomenon.

When the metal bending is discussed now much later, everybody remembers Uri
Geller but mini-Gellers are most often ignored. Although their abilities are
the most convincing phenomenon to show that psi-phenomena can be real.
Unfortunately the ignoring concerns also the parapsychological community.

The next question is natural: why do parapsychologists not appreciate metal
bending, physical mediumism and poltergeist cases? Why did Gauld and Cornell
show such a sort of hostility in their unfair criticism of The Scole Report,
giving all weapons in the hands of the skeptics? In spite of their excellent
book about poltergeists. I guess it is either disbelief in the phenomena or
fear, that such mind-boggling things are dangerous for the funding of
parapsychology. It is most safe to disregard those impossible phenomena.

But remember, in science and in the long run it is the research and
_evidence_ that will resolve arguments. It ought not to be only question of
belief or funding.

Have a nice day,
Olavi

Hi all

There are no real psi-experiences or observations. Everything is only as
defined:

"We define beliefs in superstition, magic, the paranormal, and the
supernatural identically as category mistakes where the core attributes of
mental, physical, and biological entities or processes are confused with
each other."

This is the scientific truth in Finland. The entire Academic Dissertation is
readable in the address:

https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/15177/paranorm.pdf?sequence=1

- Olavi

Hi all!

There is one case again, "sobbing child poltergeist".

http://www.24dash.com:80/socialhousing/27496.htm .

"Spooky happenings prompted Allison Marshall, 27, to bundle her family out
of the house in Mardale Road, Raffles, in the middle of the night."

"The drama began last week with a catalogue of inexplicable happenings,
which included household objects hurtling around the room and sudden and
unexplained drops in the temperature in the house.

They continued with the mysterious appearance of a skull image in a picture
frame in a glass display cabinet and disturbing noises in the dead of night,
including a child sobbing."

The results of the ignoring of field research by parapsychologists is
clearly seen again. There would be very concrete phenomena to investigate,
although I suspect the skull image is a random pattern. If the case is as is
told, very good evidence of psi would be available. But nobody knows about
the parapsychological research as is seen from the handling of the problem
and the following comment:

"Just to understand what I've read.... Allison and her family have lived in
this house since 1994 and only since September 7nd, 2007 (according to her
report) that unusual happenings started happening. Did Allison do any
renovations to the house ? Paranormal activity usually happens only when
something is disturbed (like something in the area where someone lives).. or
sometimes the age of a child can trigger paranoramal activity as well. I
think a trusted Medium would better give you information to help with this
than a priest as they have too many prerequisites that they must abide by
and not give you a realistic synopsis of what is really going on. I do
believe in God and his helpers but in this case - go with the above
suggestion!

It may just be a lost spirit that needs to be shown the light.
All my prayers...."


Religion and New Age rule, parapsychologists and scientific methods are
absent.

Have a nice day,

Olavi

Hi all folks again

Very nice to have so many heavy-weight parapsychologists on this forum.
Peter Mulacz, thank you for re-evaluation of the Eleonore Zugun case in JP
1/1999. Unfortunately there were many errors in numbering of the footnotes.
James Houran, thank you for the book "Hauntings and Poltergeists". As I
understand it, it is very informative and an important document of the state
of the art in hauntings and poltergeists.

In earlier discussions everybody did not agree with me in my opinion of the
importance of spontaneous cases. The experiments should be much more
important because they are controlled and give hard evidence about the
mechanisms of psi. But in my opinion that is not necessarily so certain.

Psi works totally unreachable of our sense organs, and all evidence of the
mechanisms is only indirect. As it happens, the only things that are
controllable in parapsychological experimentation are physical circumstances
and prevention of sensory cues.

The experiments could be really controlled only then when there would exist
a way to use partly isolation of psi effect. That means, one could be
certain which mechanisms are made impossible by the isolation and which
mechanisms are allowed to work. As far as I know, this is not possible at
the moment.

There are some difficulties in experimentation:

1. One never knows what is the source of psi. One example: the experimenter
effect.

2. There is no certainty that psi is working in the next experiment.

3. It is not so easy to get confirmation to even strong effects in earlier
experiments.

In spontaneous cases the results are there already available, they must only
be taken care of. And experimentation is possible in still active cases.
There can be much stronger motives causing the psi, so that the effect of
motivation becomes clear easily.

Making any sense?

- Olavi

> In my opinion it is totally impossible to isolate variables for
determining
> the source of psi. Parapsychologists can do as much experimenting as
ever,
> but everything remains only likely or probable. We don't know what
_really_
> happens and therefore the only tool to use is Occam's razor, and it
is not
> foolproof. Naturally, the situation may change in future, and hopefully
> soon.

I have to disagree with you there.  While it is not currently possible
to state with absolute certainty the source of Psi in any given
experiment, it is by isolating variables to the extent possible that
evidence is compiled which points to a likely source (for example,
testing a successful participant with a variety of researchers can
narrow the probability that the researchers themselves are the source
rather than the participant).  To date, no comparable degree of
control exists in the study of spontaneous cases; even when the
phenomena always appear in the presence of one person, the degree of
control is extremely limited, so that even the phenomena be accepted
as 'paranormal' it would be hard to state whether the person was the
source, or a ghost or spirit of some kind (the so called "Heartland
ghosts" behaved much like poltergeists, and seemed to target the adult
male of the house with violent activity), or some peculiar natural
force localized to the dwelling where the phenomena takes place,
etc..., etc..., etc...  And reliability of the phenomena is at least
as daunting a challenge if not more so than in experimental research
where, at least, certain participants and researchers appear capable
of getting fairly reliable results with a minimum of expense and
effort compared to the tremendous costs in travel time, equipment, and
coordination to achieve laboratory-tight control of the environments
and/or persons related to spontaneous phenomena.  Furthermore, most
"spontaneous" phenomena that may be related to Psi are not recurrent
to the degree that they could be effectively studied in a laboratory,
and one can never predict ahead of time when or whether a spontaneous
phenomena will strike.  In the early days of Psi research much of the
"spontaneous" cases were derived from questionnaires, where an average
individual might recount at the most a small handful of such
experiences, usually occurring alone and often in an apparently
hypnogogic or hypnopompic state.  These reports made useful templates
for laboratory research, to develop testable models that achieve
natural validity relative to the phenomena in question.

> If we rely heavily on variables in psi research, so as well we ought to
> believe in spirit world. There is such a huge amount of detailed
cases which
> most simply are explained by spirit world. I have checked in Finland
such
> cases myself. We ought not to choose only those cases which please
us most,
> but the total picture is important.

I agree that the existence of a spirit world would be the "simplest"
explanation for some reports, but Occam's razor is a rule of thumb,
not a physical law, the "simplest" explanation is not always correct
because "simplicity" is a human aesthetic which cannot be objectively
quantified, at least not when dealing with complex matters such as
scientific investigation.  Thus it was once considered "simpler" to
say that rotting meat "becomes" maggots than to look more closely at
the phenomena and discover the more "complicated" correlation between
flies and maggots.

So the question becomes... is the evidence of spirits real, or is it
the product of what alchemists called "telismatic images", which in
overly simplified terms are ideas that literally take on a life of
their own (for example, the hypothesis that "apparitions" of people in
remote places are psychic projections and not true "discarnate forms",
assuming there is a difference between those two things.  What
controlled research has been done on mediums and the like tend rather
to support the "projection" hypothesis than the spirit hypothesis.
Eileen Garret, for instance, scored similarly on tests of her own
psychic abilities as when she was hosting one of her spirits.  She
herself leaned towards the belief that when she was "channeling" she
was really "personating" her own psychic knowledge in dramatic form.
Of course, both convictions may be correct: There may be both
projections and spirits, and "spirits" may be either discarnate
entities such as human souls and inhuman beings, or perhaps they are
simply projections that have taken on a more permanent manifestation.
  Either way we might refer to "spiritual" phenomena as an abstract
description (although the term can be biasing since many people have
pre-determined their own idea of what "spiritual" means from culture
and religion and other sources), but whether this be in the more
literal sense of a "spirit world" or the more metaphorical sense that
is intended by the expression "keep your spirits up" remains to be seen.

> Well, I think the degree of missing control is the same.

May I ask... on what are you basing that assertion?

> And the variables
> already exist there in spontaneous cases, they must only be evaluated.

That is a truism: The variables already exist in controlled cases as
well, they must only be evaluated, and are being evaluated.  I am not
necessarily happy with the refusal of some researchers to break from
old and unsuccessful (or barely successful) paradigms, to develop
practical uses of the research, and to turn the pages of history and
prehistory to see how such phenomena were studied and developed by
those who have investigated the matter previously (e.g. Buddhists,
Hindus, alchemists, gnostics, shamans, etc...), but we should not
throw out the baby (i.e. controlled research) with the bathwater (i.e.
weak and unreliable results).  And conversely, just because many
"spontaneous" researchers have been guilty of trying to patch together
a conclusive argument from ragged threads of evidence (this is
particularly the case for "amateur" researchers), does not mean we
should give up on spontaneous case research, as it may indeed yield
many valuable findings.  We cannot have only one or the other, and
neither one is the answer by itself, but spontaneous cases have by no
means been show to be the key to understanding Psi.

> Can you, please, give me some names of successful participants in psi
> research at the present time? If they would be reliably successful in
> experiments after experiments after experiments, why is
parapsychology in
> such a tight economical situation now?

The economical situation of parapsychology is largely due to cultural
factors, i.e. the western philosophy of "materialistic realism"
whereby all things which exist are 100% created by deterministic
physico-energetic phenomena.  This philosophy has also opposed Quantum
physics because its findings contradict materialistic realism in a
hard sense at least.  But since quantum physics has proven far too
useful in certain domains of science, they have been forced to accept
it, yet there are still plenty of physicists whose wet dreams consist
of unifying quantum physics with the more comfortable realm of
Newtonian mechanics where reality does behave largely as a
physico-energetic deterministic structure.  All such attempts have
failed, and it seems likely that if anyone succeeds, it will not be by
explaining quantum physics in Newtonian terms but rather by
identifying some interface between the two domains of nature which at
least at present behave as if they were almost entirely separate.

As to gifted participants, I don't keep a list handy, and most gifted
participants remain anonymous in the journal articles, but I can
certainly name one off the top of my head: McMoneagle, Remote Viewer
001 for the CIA Stargate Project.  According to Suitbert Ertel, in a
recent experiment performed in the search for a standardized Psi
diagnostic method, McMoneagle scored higher than average gifted
participants in the experiment.  He is by no means alone, and as
Parapsychology improves I fully expect we will have an easier time
finding gifted participants, and in getting stronger results.  Indeed,
if Radin's Sequential Weighted Analysis continues to show promise, it
may be the case that we are already getting stronger results than we
realize, because we have not been separating the action of the "psi
signal" from the background random processes upon which the action of
Psi is superimposed. Psi may act on a random background, but does not
seem to entirely suppress the random background, much as if we had a
weaker intelligent radio signal superimposed on a stronger background
of natural radio emissions at a similar frequency.  By sorting the
signal from the background, we may get a better idea of just how much
of an influence these "weak" Psi signals actually have, and we should
not be surprised if for the most part Psi appears "weak" as a results
of its uncanny efficiency, since prior experimental evidence suggests
that Psi tends to operate in the most efficient manner to achieve a
goal, which is why it is has been described as "teleological"; whether
  or not that description is literally accurate, Psi certainly seems to
"behave" teleologically in always achieving its goal in the most
efficient manner possible, much as water may appear when it invariably
follows the path of least resistance.

> In my opinion both experimental work and research of spontaneous
cases are
> needed. But in good balance, and the experimental research is too
much in
> charge now. Both types support each other and can help to get common
> acceptance to parapsychology.

I agree that both are needed, and in balance, but until the funding
problem is solved, it simply cannot be that way, because to achieve
proper control of research in spontaneous cases costs far more and is
far less practical than research in experimental parapsychology.  And,
even by spending far more money, there is no guarantee that
spontaneous research will yield the type of solid and practical data
that experimental research can yield.  Perhaps it is best to focus our
labors for now in those areas of experimental Parapsychology which
show the greatest progress, some of which are already very close to
forcing an acceptance of the phenomena by the scientific community
(especially those recent experiments involving the use of fMRI), and
when that is successful then the funding problem will no longer be an
issue most likely and spontaneous case research will gain access to
greater levels of funding as well.  At this point, even if the efforts
of parapsychologists and all of their funding was totally refocused on
spontaneous cases, it would take many years to build up a body of data
even close to comparable to experimental research.  Of course, each
may contribute to the other, but for now the best hope of success for
parapsychology is, I feel quite certain, hard experimental data.

> I think spontaneous cases would be more interesting to common public
because
> many people can experience something themselves and hear what their
nearest
> friends have observed. It is regrettable what New Age and not so bright
> "ghost hunters" have done to the reputation of parapsychology.

I don't argue that such cases are "more interesting", but they may be
"too interesting", if you follow me.  People love stories about things
that go bump in the night.  People may even say they believe these
things.  But the western mindset has drawn a solid line between
"science" and "spirit", so that most people can no more swallow a
combination of the two than they could eat ketchup on ice cream (with
exceptions in both cases).  It may be easier to "build a bridge"
between science and spirit, paved by the data from Psi research.
Except for religious reasons, most people rarely argue seriously with
the scientific concensus, especially when its products become a part
of their everyday life.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Art Basaran

Hi Art and all

Thank you, Art, for your kind and thoughtful answer, and you are certainly
right in most details. But I have still some comments.

> (.) for isolating critical variables, and
> for determining the likely source of Psi

In my opinion it is totally impossible to isolate variables for determining
the source of psi. Parapsychologists can do as much experimenting as ever,
but everything remains only likely or probable. We don't know what _really_
happens and therefore the only tool to use is Occam's razor, and it is not
foolproof. Naturally, the situation may change in future, and hopefully
soon.

If we rely heavily on variables in psi research, so as well we ought to
believe in spirit world. There is such a huge amount of detailed cases which
most simply are explained by spirit world. I have checked in Finland such
cases myself. We ought not to choose only those cases which please us most,
but the total picture is important.

> The precise problem with control that you
> mention is even more glaring in spontaneous
> cases, where it is virtually impossible to
> control the variables.


Well, I think the degree of missing control is the same. And the variables
already exist there in spontaneous cases, they must only be evaluated.

Can you, please, give me some names of successful participants in psi
research at the present time? If they would be reliably successful in
experiments after experiments after experiments, why is parapsychology in
such a tight economical situation now?

In my opinion both experimental work and research of spontaneous cases are
needed. But in good balance, and the experimental research is too much in
charge now. Both types support each other and can help to get common
acceptance to parapsychology.

I think spontaneous cases would be more interesting to common public because
many people can experience something themselves and hear what their nearest
friends have observed. It is regrettable what New Age and not so bright
"ghost hunters" have done to the reputation of parapsychology.

- Olavi

Hi again Olavi,

I don't disagree that spontaneous case research is important, but for
the purposes of convincing people of the existence of Psi, for
isolating critical variables, and for determining the likely source of
Psi, I still think it cannot beat hard experimental research.

The precise problem with control that you mention is even more glaring
in spontaneous cases, where it is virtually impossible to control the
variables.

One never knows the 'source' of the effect in haunting and poltergeist
cases either.  One can narrow it down by comparing activity records to
the locations of people present, and by dispensing certain types of
tests that measure for temporal lobe lability.  But in experiments,
one can be even more precise, by testing successful participants many
times and with many different researchers/fellow participants to
ensure that any single experimenter or fellow participant is not the
source of their score.  While this means we can never identify in any
single experimental run the source of the Psi influence, but over many
runs we can reasonably establish where it is a successful participant
or merely a successful researcher (one who obtains scores by some
personal Psi-mediated influence).

One also never knows whether one will experience phenomena during any
brief visit of a haunting or poltergeist, with those rare exceptions
of places that for a time seem never to fail (the Heartland haunting
comes to mind), which are few and far between and also don't last
forever (often they end as soon as the current inhabitants of the
house leave, and may not start up again, or may only start up again
after the new inhabitants have spent time there).  Nor is it easy to
know exactly where the phenomena will take place, so one must ideally
have an extensive network of monitoring devices in place to take
various readings and measurements which coincide with the phenomena.

As far as the strength of the effect, I'll grant your point that
spontaneous cases do *seem* stronger than the vast majority of
laboratory evidence.  And in this regard, it has inspired experimental
research to try to achieve natural validity so that stronger effects
might occur in experiments.  Discoveries like the apparent correlation
between poltergeists and people with high temporal lobe lability has
led to experiments, but these have not yielded the quite impressive
results either.  But it is very hard to turn the haunting or
poltergeist itself into an experiment; one could lock down the place,
turn it into a laboratory, sequester the families in case they are the
source of the phenomena in some way.  All extremely expensive,
requiring constant on-sight investigation, high tech equipment, and
even the permission of individuals involved to be locked up with the
phenomena until we have learned something about it.  The "mobile labs"
for ghost and poltergeist hunting have long been dreamed of, but it is
hugely impractical unless you are aware of some tremendous source of
funding by which to establish a massive network of researchers with
the proper equipment to go around, find such places, and study them in
excruciating detail until the activity stops (which i grant it might
never stop in some places, but hauntings and poltergeists seem usually
to be temporary things, short lived and rarely very powerful).

While I do think we need both types of research, I don't think that
the spontaneous cases will ever be what convinces people, especially
because people are too often skeptical by nature of "ghost tales" told
to them by complete strangers (people may be receptive to ghost
stories from friends and loved ones, but not as often from strangers).
  On the other hand, if due to experimental findings the existence of
Psi phenomena becomes widely accepted, then "ghost hunters" may find
themselves taken more seriously as a consequence, since it is one
short step from Psi to hauntings/poltergeists.  That is my feeling.

Art Basaran

--- In PSI_research@yahoogroups.com, "Olavi Kiviniemi" <okivi@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all folks again
>
> Very nice to have so many heavy-weight parapsychologists on this forum.
> Peter Mulacz, thank you for re-evaluation of the Eleonore Zugun case
in JP
> 1/1999. Unfortunately there were many errors in numbering of the
footnotes.
> James Houran, thank you for the book "Hauntings and Poltergeists". As I
> understand it, it is very informative and an important document of
the state
> of the art in hauntings and poltergeists.
>
> In earlier discussions everybody did not agree with me in my opinion
of the
> importance of spontaneous cases. The experiments should be much more
> important because they are controlled and give hard evidence about the
> mechanisms of psi. But in my opinion that is not necessarily so certain.
>
> Psi works totally unreachable of our sense organs, and all evidence
of the
> mechanisms is only indirect. As it happens, the only things that are
> controllable in parapsychological experimentation are physical
circumstances
> and prevention of sensory cues.
>
> The experiments could be really controlled only then when there
would exist
> a way to use partly isolation of psi effect. That means, one could be
> certain which mechanisms are made impossible by the isolation and which
> mechanisms are allowed to work. As far as I know, this is not
possible at
> the moment.
>
> There are some difficulties in experimentation:
>
> 1. One never knows what is the source of psi. One example: the
experimenter
> effect.
>
> 2. There is no certainty that psi is working in the next experiment.
>
> 3. It is not so easy to get confirmation to even strong effects in
earlier
> experiments.
>
> In spontaneous cases the results are there already available, they
must only
> be taken care of. And experimentation is possible in still active
cases.
> There can be much stronger motives causing the psi, so that the
effect of
> motivation becomes clear easily.
>
> Making any sense?
>
> - Olavi
>

Hi all folks again

Very nice to have so many heavy-weight parapsychologists on this forum.
Peter Mulacz, thank you for re-evaluation of the Eleonore Zugun case in JP
1/1999. Unfortunately there were many errors in numbering of the footnotes.
James Houran, thank you for the book "Hauntings and Poltergeists". As I
understand it, it is very informative and an important document of the state
of the art in hauntings and poltergeists.

In earlier discussions everybody did not agree with me in my opinion of the
importance of spontaneous cases. The experiments should be much more
important because they are controlled and give hard evidence about the
mechanisms of psi. But in my opinion that is not necessarily so certain.

Psi works totally unreachable of our sense organs, and all evidence of the
mechanisms is only indirect. As it happens, the only things that are
controllable in parapsychological experimentation are physical circumstances
and prevention of sensory cues.

The experiments could be really controlled only then when there would exist
a way to use partly isolation of psi effect. That means, one could be
certain which mechanisms are made impossible by the isolation and which
mechanisms are allowed to work. As far as I know, this is not possible at
the moment.

There are some difficulties in experimentation:

1. One never knows what is the source of psi. One example: the experimenter
effect.

2. There is no certainty that psi is working in the next experiment.

3. It is not so easy to get confirmation to even strong effects in earlier
experiments.

In spontaneous cases the results are there already available, they must only
be taken care of. And experimentation is possible in still active cases.
There can be much stronger motives causing the psi, so that the effect of
motivation becomes clear easily.

Making any sense?

- Olavi

Read on the Paranormal Review web site :

UNITED STATES. Arch sceptic James Randi's most recent stunt
to "disprove" the existence of paranormal powers has sensationally
failed.

As part of his $1 million offer to the first person to provide him
with convincing, testable proof of supernatural powers, Randi had set
up a remote viewing challenge involving the contents of a special
sealed box held at his educational foundation's offices in Florida.

But two cryptographers have correctly identified the object inside
the box as a DVD or CD and – tongue in cheek – have told Randi that
either a money order or certified cheque for $1 million will be
acceptable.

The good news for Randi is that Matt Blaze (above) who solved the
challenge, along with Jutta Degener, is a fan of Randi and has no
intention of claiming the prize. He also came up with the answer not
by remote viewing across 1,000 miles from the Penn Engineering
faculty in Philadelphia, where he is an associate professor of
Computer and Information Science, but by using his mental powers to
decipher a cryptic clue published by Randi.

The problem for publicity-seeking challenges like Randi's is that
they rely to a large degree on trust. But psychics don't trust the
American magician and he disbelieves their claims.

So, when Randi (left) hid something in a box at the James Randi
Educational Foundation (JREF) in Fort Lauderdale, there would
inevitably be those who would expect him to cheat by denying even
correct remote visions of the box's contents, perhaps by switching
them before opening the box.

To overcome such allegations and be able to prove the challenge was
fair, Randi decided in January to publish an encoded description of
the box's secret contents:


0679
4388
66/27
5-14


It took Blaze and Degener only a short while to suspect – or, they
say, "if you prefer, we had a divine inspiration" – that the first 10
digits might represent the ISBN number of a published book. An
Internet search confirmed it was for the 1995 edition of the Random
House Webster's College Dictionary.

When the cryptographers eventually obtained a copy, they turned to
page 275 (/27 5) and counted up 14 lines from the bottom (-14), where
they discovered a description of a compact disc.

The not-so-amazing Randi had failed to realise that gifted
cryptographers might be more successful than the psychics he was
challenging and who, by and large, treat his various contests with
contempt.

Randi's encoded description – cryptographers call it a "commitment
function" – proved to be reversible, which was why Blaze and Degener
were able to crack it. But they also point out that it was subject
to "collisions", by which they mean it could be interpreted in
different ways.

For example, instead of counting 14 lines from the bottom of page
275, they (or Randi) could have claimed that it referred to the first
column, fourth entry on that page, in which case the object in the
box would have been the Communist Manifesto instead of a compact disc.

In other words, Randi could have been accused of exploiting this
ambiguity.

It is claimed on the JREF forum website that Randi's remote viewing
challenge was only aimed at well-known remote viewer Ed Dames and
seven colleagues. Even so, had the encoded message been solved by an
unscrupulous cryptographer who, in turn, contacted Ed Dames and told
him the answer, and if Dames decided to teach Randi a lesson by using
the information, instead of remote viewing, then Randi could be $1
million worse off right now.

If nothing else, this episode proves how futile Randi's challenges
are and how sloppy the protocols are that he tries to impose. It
astonishes many parapsychologists that his sceptical reputation is
largely built on such shaky foundations.


Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007

http://www.paranormalreview.co.uk/News/tabid/59/newsid368/96/Challenge
-solved-Randi-owes-me-1-million/Default.aspx


.

Dear Fellow Researchers,

Recently, Alex Tsakiris (host of Skeptiko) and myself launched a new
website called OpenSourceScience (www.opensourcescience.net). The
purpose of the site is to underwrite scientifically rigorous
replications of experiments that contribute to an improved
understanding of human consciousness.  The site provides a public
space for managing these replications in a way that provides open
access to all phases of the research process.  OpenSourceScience has
several grants available to researchers who are interested in
replicating the studies that we examine.  We are encouraging
collaboration from people in the scientific community on all sides of
the psi debate.

We are launching the site with an examination of the studies of Dr.
Rupert Sheldrake and Dr. Richard Wiseman on the phenomenon of 'dogs
that know when their owners are coming home'.  If you peruse the site,
you will find several pages that I have set up for a close examination
of the methods and statistics used in these studies.  There has been a
lot of debate about this research, and we'd like to bring together as
many people as possible to chart a productive course forward.

Site visitors will need to create a user account in order to offer
their input.  Click on the 'create an account' button in the top right
hand corner of the page.  After that, you will be able to offer your
input anywhere you see a discussion tab or an edit link.

I hope that members of the parapsychological community will take a
keen interest in participating in this site, whether you'd like to
submit a grant proposal or just take part in the discussion.  The
Sheldrake/Wiseman studies are just the beginning for
OpenSourceScience.  We plan to examine more studies in the future, and
welcome your suggestions for future replications.  Please stop by and
take a tour: www.opensourcescience.net

Thank you for your attention,

Annalisa Ventola
www.publicparapsychology.org
annalisa@...

Hi everyone and especially Art Basaran.

> Ironically, the best developments I see
> in this area of research are actually those
> which support a more skeptic perspective.
> For instance, many "hauntings" and
> "poltergeists" have been eliminated by
> simple elimination of radon leakage,
> which can result in strange noises and
> even hallucinations.

Now, there are needed references and examples, otherwise this is so loose an
opinion that it cannot be discussed intelligently. We here in Finland have
so much radon gas seeping out of the ground that it is a health (cancer)
problem in many areas. And I have never heard the geologists talk about
strange noises and hallucinations caused by radon here.

In my opinion skeptics and parapsychologists ought to start consulting
appropriate disciplines of "ordinary" science to prevent too far-reaching
and unrealistic speculations. I would guess that in this case the source of
information is Michael Persinger and the skeptics.

> Then there is the progress in "infrasound"
> research; it seems that at least one
> laboratory has been "exorcised" by simple
> elimination of a noise that resonated with
> the shape of the building ("infrasound").


There are many scientists who have worked and are all the time working with
infrasoud. A very informative review can be read here:

http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPdf/Infrasound.p\
df

According to the review, the most common cognitive effects are annoyance,
sleep disturbance, headaches, and nausea. Physiological effects found are
changes in blood pressure, respiratory rate, and balance. Anybody interested
can find much more details in the review.

> There is a simple formula, and an even
> evolutionary perspective behind the
> hypothesis, namely that it has been
> noted that big cats and perhaps other
> predators may generate infrasound.


Well, who has noted (=measured?) these infrasounds? Are they strong enough
compared to other infrasounds generated in nature?

> And just recently it was announced that
> a controlled experiment will be undertaken
> whereby participants randomly exposed
> to infrasound will be asked to rate subjectively
> their sensations, to see if people exposed to
> infrasound have experiences similar to
> poltergeists (there is already medical evidence
> that it causes sensations like cold chills).

There has already been done very many such experiments. Anybody can try to
check the results, a lot of work. Vic Tandy has received much publicity from
the skeptics, but the case has been exaggerated in my opinion.

> As to the mini-Gellers, well, I do recall
> seeing some studies on these, all of which
> were dismissed as hoaxes (though I cannot
> recall how many of these, exactly, were
> studies done by James Randi, whose methods
> do not in my opinion even approach the
> quality of most professional Parapsychological
> research).

But we would just need the references, otherwise this is too loose.

> But, as I said before, we have every reason
> to believe that Uri Geller himself was a
> fraud, so why expect more from the mini
> Gellers?

If you please could give some of the reasons and references? In my opinion
the logic goes vice versa: existence of mini-Gellers supports Geller as
originator of the phenomenon, although he was a stage performer and could
cheat very well.

> Metal bending is still around, yes, but
> surely there must be exaggeration involved
> here, especially if it is supposedly common
> enough to have "spoon bending parties"
> (which, if I'm not much mistaken, are a
> holdover of the Spiritist era when spoon
> bending, apparitions, and moving tables
> all seemed remarkably polite in showing
> up whenever invited to a fancy social
> party).

In my opinion it is not important if the bending is a "holdover of the
Spiritist era". What is important is that, what really is happening. The New
Age folks don't understand scientific experimentation and systematic
gathering of evidence, but that obstacle ought to be overcome by researches
taking contact to the performers. I personally have contacted one of them
and asked him send bent spoons to me for investigation.


> I've seen the video on the mind-energy
> site, and I believe that it is a trick and
> that I can see how it done, so in that
> regard i suspect this is a hoax not even
> of the quality of Uri Geller.

Would you please tell us in detail what you saw and how the trick was done.
Have you experimented with spoon bending yourself?

- Olavi

Hi everyone,

I too am an avid 'amateur', though I hope to do more formal research
in time.  I too have read decades worth of the Journals, including
Journal of Parapsychology, European Journal of Parapsychology,
International Journal of Parapsychology, Society for Scientific
Exploration, and Society for Psychical Research (among others).  I
have also tried to keep abreast of some of the better texts in the
field (e.g. Handbook of Parapsychology edited by Wolman, which is a
little outdated, the Conscious Universe by Radin, and The Roots of
Consciousness by Mishlove, as well as some works on possibly related
topics like Hypothesis of a New Science of Life by Sheldrake and The
Holographic Universe by Pribram, just to name a few).  I have had the
chance to have many discussions with researchers in the field over the
last several years, and I do have some experience in Psychological
Research.  Thus I do not pretend to qualify as a "top authority" on
any of this, but I also think it's possible that avid outsiders can
sometimes contribute a fresh perspective that is not yet bogged down
in theory and data that may seem overwhelming to confront.  I have
seen, and even experienced, such a 'bogging down'; no researcher, no
matter how excited at the start, can always remember to see the forest
for the trees, particularly when we wander too far into those woods.

I think we can all agree, however fervently we personally accept
poltergeists, or the psychodynamic/neurological perspective on such
cases, or however fervently we reject these, that the full jury is not
out yet.  Flirtation with the systematic collection of data by a
handful of researchers does not a systematic body of data make.
Parapsychologists, and the more scientific minded ghost hunter types,
have long dreamed of raising the standard of this type of research,
imagining the use of "mobile investigate units" that would allow for
the kind of impeccable observations, measurements, and controls that
would raise the standard of RSPK research to something approaching Psi
research.  Even in those cases where we may safely assert an anomaly
existed, the mere existence of anomalies is not enough to make a solid
foundation of evidence.  I personally agree that there is evidence
hard to refute, enough at least that everyone ought to accept there is
more truth to hauntings and poltergeists than merely
imagination-run-wild.  Ironically, the best developments I see in this
area of research are actually those which support a more skeptic
perspective.  For instance, many "hauntings" and "poltergeists" have
been eliminated by simple elimination of radon leakage, which can
result in strange noises and even hallucinations.  Then there is the
progress in "infrasound" research; it seems that at least one
laboratory has been "exorcised" by simple elimination of a noise that
resonated with the shape of the building ("infrasound").  There is a
simple formula, and an even evolutionary perspective behind the
hypothesis, namely that it has been noted that big cats and perhaps
other predators may generate infrasound.  And just recently it was
announced that a controlled experiment will be undertaken whereby
participants randomly exposed to infrasound will be asked to rate
subjectively their sensations, to see if people exposed to infrasound
have experiences similar to poltergeists (there is already medical
evidence that it causes sensations like cold chills).  If
Parapsychologists, working in RSPK research, still believe that some
poltergeists or hauntings are more than this (infrasound, radon, or
any other conventional explanation), and I personally feel that it
does, then they need to get on the ball.  I know they are dealing with
possibly a little known phenomenon that little resembles any
conventional phenomenon, but it becomes more difficult to justify the
research if people (especially mainstream scientists) can believe
these things are just hallucinations and evolved fear responses.  If
the research does not start to drive forward relentlessly, then it may
be a long time before these things can be accepted as more than
campfire tales to scare the kiddies, combined with a bit of gullibility.

As to the mini-Gellers, well, I do recall seeing some studies on
these, all of which were dismissed as hoaxes (though I cannot recall
how many of these, exactly, were studies done by James Randi, whose
methods do not in my opinion even approach the quality of most
professional Parapsychological research).  But, as I said before, we
have every reason to believe that Uri Geller himself was a fraud, so
why expect more from the mini Gellers?  I know that Geller "seemed" to
pass a few controlled tests, but perhaps he was simply an astounding
magician who pulled one over even on some scientists.  When Randi
invited him on television, and was allowed to prepare the set to
prevent cheating, Geller seemed to be effectively "shut down" (and
please don't tell me it was a "psi mediated experimenter effect"
caused by Randi's skepticism, surely a man who was used to performing
these feats before large audiences of both skeptics and believers
could not have been so easily thwarted by Randi's disbelief).  I've
seen the broadcast, and Geller seemed flustered and frustrated by the
precautions Randi had put in place against fraud.  Granting, even
Randi never explained the tricks to my satisfaction, but that may
prove nothing more than Geller was a more talented, albeit not
infallible, magician than Randi.  But, I gather not everyone agrees
with me on this one.

Metal bending is still around, yes, but surely there must be
exaggeration involved here, especially if it is supposedly common
enough to have "spoon bending parties" (which, if I'm not much
mistaken, are a holdover of the Spiritist era when spoon bending,
apparitions, and moving tables all seemed remarkably polite in showing
up whenever invited to a fancy social party).  I've seen the video on
the mind-energy site, and I believe that it is a trick and that I can
see how it done, so in that regard i suspect this is a hoax not even
of the quality of Uri Geller.  Maybe I'm just jaded, but it seems to
me that spoon bending is a dead horse and that, if we are to
demonstrate 'telekinesis' (which term I prefer to 'macro-PK') we
should probably have participants attempt a task that has not been a
badly abused 'fashion' since the 1800s, though I make allowance for
the 'psychomantaeum" chambers since there haven't been any particular
imrovements of late in creating an environment conducive to seeing
'spirits'.

As has been said, there will always be someone to ask the questions...
but how long will we have to wait for the answers?

Art Basaran

Hi Nan,


  >  Did you go to the Bender conference, Peter? How was it, if so?

No, I didn't.  1000km plus driving to and the same distance back for
just half a day, this doesn't pay off.
Moreover, as I know all the speakers since 20 or 30 years, I can imagine
what they were saying ...

Next week, I'll give a talk myself on the life and work of Hans Bender,
his achievements (and his failures, too), and on the shifts in
parapsychology since his days.


Best,
Peter

--

================================================================
Prof. Peter  MULACZ
  >> PSI  WIEN <<
================================================================
WWW:            http://parapsychologie.info/
                  http://parapsychologie.ac.at/
                  http://zugun.parapsychologie.info
                  http://stigmatisation.parapsychologie.info
                  http://franz-anton-mesmer.parapsychologie.info
                  http://lambert-binder.parapsychologie.info
E-mail:         peter.mulacz@...
                  peter.mulacz@...
Phone:          +43 1 4058335
SnailMail:      Hernalser  Hauptstrasse  38
                  A-1170  WIEN/VIENNA
                  AUSTRIA
================================================================

Hi Nancy,

> I have not read the whole Scole report and in conversations with
> Arthur Ellison about it years ago (his reports that lights in the
> seances seemed to go through his hands and that he felt that as it
> happened) has made me think that the jury is still out there. I have
> yet to find somebody to thoroughly review both the Scole Report itself
> and the book by the Solomon's on the Scole group for the International
> Journal of Parapsychology that I edit mainly because of the magnitude
> of the information. People just don't want to take on the task.

Knowing Robin Foy and Hans Scheer, besides the three authors, the report
that I read carefully did not convince me.  There are too many question
that remain unanswered.  I assess some of the methodicals considerations
as utterly wrong.  Yet there seem to be a number of effects that are
unexplained.  I had a few discussion with Monty Keen, both in newsgroups
and in real life, and also with Arthur Ellison, so no-one could complain
that I raise my objections only now as they are no more with us. (I
don't know the Salomon's book.)

> As for poltergeists: Hans Bender's work remains mostly in German,

Unfortunately.

> ... What we need is data-gathering of psychological characteristics of
> individuals who are involved in poltergeist events, including reports
> from interviewing psychologists/psychiatrists on the same folk that
> focus on family dynamics before, during and after the outbreak.

Before the outbreak?
How should that be accomplished?

> Having said that, this doesn't denigrate the work of Bender or anyone
> else you mentioned -- and the Rosenheim case, I haven't read the
> original either but have read the accounts you mentioned, is good
> evidence for the psychodynamic theory, I think.

I think it is still -- after 30+ years -- the best evidence we have.

> It's a strong case in and of itself but it's a single case. So what we
> have are the Roseheim case and a handful of others, not case after
> case after case as in the experiment after experiment after experiment
> type of evidence for psychological correlates and ESP scoring.

This is true.
There is another consideration.  I remember Countess Wassilko saying,
"one needs to breed such cases in order to investigate them", which of
course would include families being disturbed and people suffering from
the occuring phenomena.  The Countess idea was that people need to make
sacrifies for the progress of science.  In contrast, Hans Bender, some
40 years later, pointed out that the parapsychologist faces a task on
purely humanitarian grounds to bring these disturbing phenomena to an
end and to restore normalily, which was achieved in the Rosenheim case
mainly by the fact that living conditions of the focus person were
systematically changed.  She broke up with her boyfriend, she did no
more live with her parents, and most important of all, she got a new job
(actually apprenticeship training position).  The latter was important
as her previous master, the attorney Adam, was extremely fascinated by
her phenomena which obviously contributed to their energy, if I may say
so metaphorically.  I have never seen a person being that convinced like
Adam ...

> As regards the mini-Gellers, ... I'm not an expert on that area, and
> am in fact not particularly interested in PK personally, ...

I have seen many of them, and -- other than you -- I am very interested
in their phenomena.  There are still PK parties held, at least in
Germany, so it should be no problem to set up such in Austria as well,
but so far I could not raise any interest with physicists to co-operate
in an investigation of such phenomena.  Given time constraints, I will
not start something if I do not have a fair chance of ending it
successfully, which means, with some progress in insight, not only
accumulation of more data.

> Parapsychologists who are interested in Macro-PK are still interested
> and aware that there was more there than it seemed when the fashion in
> scientific parapsychology turned elsewhere.

How true!

> That the phenomena is still out there -- whether it's ESP or PK or
> poltergeists or séance room phenomena -- is a hopeful sign. It means
> no matter how unfashionable it is to deal seriously with these topics
> -- and at the moment it's taboo in most academic circles --

Any ideas how to break up these taboos?


Best,
Peter

--

================================================================
Prof. Peter  MULACZ
  >> PSI  WIEN <<
================================================================
WWW:            http://parapsychologie.info/
                  http://parapsychologie.ac.at/
                  http://zugun.parapsychologie.info
                  http://stigmatisation.parapsychologie.info
                  http://franz-anton-mesmer.parapsychologie.info
                  http://lambert-binder.parapsychologie.info
E-mail:         peter.mulacz@...
                  peter.mulacz@...
Phone:          +43 1 4058335
SnailMail:      Hernalser  Hauptstrasse  38
                  A-1170  WIEN/VIENNA
                  AUSTRIA
================================================================