• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Rosenheim Case

I think this is just repeating the claim that we feel is unsupported. Skeptics think the shyness effect is entirely due to phenomena having completely natural causes.

I strongly disagree, and have a much firmer ground than skeptics to have my opinion.

Nah. My feeling is that these parties were not doing anything remotely like a paranormal investigation. They're all laypersons. A kid with a plan could certainly reproduce these effects.

Aha, you have certainly perused the article in German that Kuko 4000 posted here?

Actually, this is incorrect. Firstly, at least one testimony alleged to have found apparatus.

What apparatus do you mean?

Secondly, when attempting to elicit a best explanation, it's important to see how the data fits a model. The psi model is very challenging because there is no understanding of psi. The naturalistic model is much better understood and has certain predictions. It can be eliminated when the predictions fail, which is the purpose of attempting to do psi experiments with controls.

Fine, but unfortunately we after all have all those observations of psi-phenomena.

In this case, there was nothing demonstrated that distinctly excludes naturalistic explanations, so if nothing else, it remains on the table as one of the options.

It's just a question of what's most likely, given what we already understand.

To say that must mean, that you are really versed in the case?
 
A very concise article, lightly edited from automatic Google translation Finnish --> English.

Lusikka 15.1.2008:
Rosenheim poltergeist

It came in Rosenheim acquired by the events of the first reports. Disappointed they were only preliminary reports, and they lacked a lot of important details. Fortunately, I also have a few subsequent summary, so the information I received a combination of the case in my view, quite a good overview. Source between noticed only one of the conflict, the detail. Like many here that were signed in the reports and opinions were not to address the subject matter, even if they have gathered large amounts of the investigation.

That, so far, perhaps the most studied poltergeist phenomenon occurred in Bavaria, Rosenheim In the winter of 1967/68. Venue was Adam's law firm. In the summer of the office were found to disturb the phones in operation. Often, tolls for all of the four phone in the same time, although no one has been to call there. Calls were interrupted frequently, and telephone charges were unusually high.

In November, began to arise in new and powerful phenomena, such as the roof 2.5 m above the fluorescent tubes went out little difference. The examination found that the pipes were turned mortgage of 90 degrees. Auto-fuses went off little difference without perceptible reason. There was heard hard bangs different parts of the office, not for any articles or other surfaces, but as though directly from the air.

Initially, was supposed to disruptions caused by defects in the electricity grid. In electricity generating expert came to investigate the case and installed 16.11.1967 recorder, which could be measured in an apartment grid, optionally, either tension or the flow of power. Inappropriate treatment to prevent the recorder was used to begin a long-time sealed, when the paper and a pen were not reach protecting glass below. When the sealing of later shut down the paper to facilitate the exchange, the so-printing process is not subject to adjustments.

Recorders showed raised peaks, as well as suspension of the power consumption and, at times, the pen hit the top of the measuring up. The results, however, were inexplicable features, which were also seen attached to the reports of recorded images. Although the recorder seemed to 50 ampere flows, as fuses are not went off. The other hand, fuses went off without a corresponding peaks recorder. As a result, Fuse went off and chart peaks did not correspond to each other.

The chard recorder paper was the speed of 1 mm / min, and the peaks accounted for more than one case, even a minute's time limits for the corresponding loops and arches. The pen is not the structure of rigidity due to have been able to move the paper direction of travel, so that the loops were due to confidence in the paper circulation. The paper periodic increase in off the chassis refers to the fact that the pen came a couple of times tears the paper. Sealed chart the paper could not reach a deal without the opening of the seal, and without the sealing of the paper moving trace describe, it would have been very difficult.

The telephone became a researcher to review the contacts. He installed a counter to record all calls to an office. The calculator will register the phone calls, sometimes in relation to the witness, although no one has had a phone conversation. In one stage, there were only one telephone to facilitate the inspection. Although the number choose was locked, so phone calls, still registered.

The telephone company the researcher concluded that the lines are operating properly, but calls to office telephoned the unexplained way. In this case, had no other choice than mechanical force effect phones. For a number of springs had to press the appropriate order to select the number. For example, Miss Between was, at worst, played 32 times for 10 minutes during the 0119 number, and sometimes playing 4-5 minutes, all in all, hundreds of calls. Behind your calls had to be some kind of motivation, when it'll be able to give impetus to the mechanical repeated the same number.

On Monday, 20.11.1967 hard bang after the head of the room roof fell to the floor lamps and was broken. Since falling lamps was considered too dangerous to human health, all of them in an exchange of incandescent lamps after the case. For light bulbs burst broken, and sometimes also broke the glass lampshades. Kato will depend on the lamps swing often, sometimes so severely that the touched the ceiling. Swinging lamp beside the roof hung a plastic pendulum not moved. Copiers developing solution leaked out, sometimes inexplicably floor.

The Director of the devastation offence due to "unknown", after which the police also came to the spot to investigate the situation. The phenomena occurred only during work hours, so someone of the population was likely to blame. Soon discovered that the phenomena occurred only when the 19-year old Annemarie Schneider was there. Bulbs burst Proximity her so that she often received the fragments on the ground.

One of the owners wondered disturbances taking place in and became a to say: "Now, we are no longer only missing, the images that move the wall"! And, indeed, and soon they started to move. Pictures and calendars swung mortgages, rotated around the hooks, and sometimes fell. Paintings operating margins in general, when no one is occurring there to watch us. Some people, however, able to see some fluctuations, which occurred in rapid movement. He asserted to have seen everything so well that no one here had not been able to give rise to movements in the normal way.

Parapsychology Professor Hans Bender became the site of two assistant 1.12.1967. The electrical equipment inexplicably missed because of disruptions he called in addition to the site of physicist who measured electricity grid and office rooms phenomena with a four-channel memory oscilloscope. It was measured using a network of electric current, changes in the electric, magnetic fields and sounds in the air using a microphone. Fast met because of the memory oscilloscope did not enter the entire time, but the recording was launched from a visit to small changes in measurable levels of channels.

Oscilloscope did not confirm the chart peaks and measurements, found no environmental them. Any chart of the results can be definitely conclude that the unexplained peaks are not caused by mains duty shocks, but mechanical force effect recorder. The mechanical effect of also refers to the fact that the broken light bulbs was the incandescent wire sometimes intact.

Parapsychology researchers tried to describe the video at an office of phenomena. They got saved swinging of lighting and bangs, but the tables video recording movement was not successful. Sensijaan staff managed to Video of one 120 (or the first report of 320)-degree rotation.

In many circumstances, it appeared that the phenomena avoided directly detected in becoming. Almost always they occurred in a place which no one does not become perceived, and the attention to the subject of locations, is generally not happened. For example, when the movement is often focused on table video camera, so it does not move at all. But it moved as soon as the video tape ran out and the record came to a halt.

When the disruption was caused Annemarie was found, so to reduce the damage he was granted a vacation. However, she wanted to go to work after the Christmas. During such visits, the course began to happen again, and even more strongly. Physics professor saw how the drawer came out to himself. Two times over by 3.5 zentner, or around 175 kg of filing cabinets, weighing approximately 30 cm out of the wall. Pictures fell down and lamps were broken more dense pace.

Annemarie, and opposite him seated in an office worker complained of sometimes fierce sense of corporate press one of the two will be replaced and became a point appears in the skin ear neck until reaching reddish region.

When Annemarie moved to another employer's office, the phenomena of the so-Adami, ran out of the office. They continued in a moment of his weak at home, and is also likely to be the new office. At least 40 spot was the person identified in Rosenheim phenomena, accompanied by parapsychology scientists, engineers, policemen, doctors, psychiatrists, physicians, psychologists, office staff, customers and others.

There was also sceptical magician Allan, who noticed the studies used plastic pendulum nylon string depend on the roof. Thus, the book Allan, Schiff und Kramer: "Falsche Geister - echte Schwindler" was declared the whole affair spoofing. " Quite a bold claim, where a whole, taking into account. It would have been a miracle, if not central, and other staff should be strictly observed and the findings of the investigation, and even the criminal act.

The owner sued the book's publisher's right, because he himself and his staff came to the White Paper on charges of cheating. Such licences shall be the basis of the right of staff to be involved, and banned the book. Trial of the studies confirmed the information that is obtained, when and as a result, it was found that the principle of non been captured from fraudulent phenomena causing.

Connection with the case arose in many other poltergeist phenomenon emerging issues:
1. Phenomena took place only when the agent was on the spot.
2. Phenomena happened mostly in the absolute vicinity of the agent and they became fewer the distance increases.
3. Phenomena avoided the direct detection of time, but the avoiding was not complete.
4. Those would lead to the conclusion that behind them was sort of an intellect.
5. The central was the "psychological tensions."


A summary of the sources are (in chronological order):
Hans Bender (1968): Der Rosenheimer Spuk - I do not Fall spontaner Psychokinesis. (Ein vorläufiger Bericht). Zeitschrift fuer Parapsychologie und der Grenzgebiete Psychologie Vol 11 s.104-112.
F. Karger und G. Zicha (1968): Physikalische Untersuchung des Spukfalles in Rosenheim. Zeitschrift fuer Parapsychologie und der Grenzgebiete Psychologie Vol 11 s.113-131.
Hans Bender (1971): Unser sechster Sinn. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart.
Hans Bender (1973): Verborgene Wirklichkeit. Walter-Verlag, Olten und Freiburg im Breisgau.
Alan Gauld and D. A. Cornell (1979): Poltergeists. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Boston and Henley.
Elmar R. Gruber (1981): On the Track of the poltergeist. ASPR Newsletter Vol VII, Number 1, January 1981.
 
I had in my mind a situation when an often swinging or rotating picture on the wall was video recorded. It did not move, but when the tape came to end and the recording stopped, then the picture moved...It was told that the recording succeeded later once.

See, this is why skeptics get so frustrated by believers. You read somewhere that a video camera, trained on a picture that allegedly moved on its own, failed to record the phenomenon. Then, it is asserted that the phenomenon occurred immediately after the video camera ceased recording. And you accept that at face value.

You read that, apparently, the researchers were successful in capturing the moving picture on video on another occasion, although you have not seen an example of that video, nor, apparently, has anyone else. Ever. Yet you accept that at face value.

And you get indignant when we question you about it. I am reminded of my five year old son, standing over a broken vase, and asserting, in all sincerity, that his teddy bear did it. He too becomes indignant when I suggest thats not the way it really happened.
 
A very concise article, lightly edited from automatic Google translation Finnish --> English.

I may have missed something, because I don't find the translation particularly comprehensible, but as far as I can tell, they are saying that they did not discover the cause of the disruptions.

Linda
 
See, this is why skeptics get so frustrated by believers. You read somewhere that a video camera, trained on a picture that allegedly moved on its own, failed to record the phenomenon. Then, it is asserted that the phenomenon occurred immediately after the video camera ceased recording. And you accept that at face value.

Wrong. I accept nothing at face value. I check always the background of the cases and people around there.

You read that, apparently, the researchers were successful in capturing the moving picture on video on another occasion, although you have not seen an example of that video, nor, apparently, has anyone else. Ever. Yet you accept that at face value.

And you know that there is no such video? OK, the probabilities... The probabilities are depending on details. This discussion has not reached the firm detail level yet. I am waiting.

And you get indignant when we question you about it. I am reminded of my five year old son, standing over a broken vase, and asserting, in all sincerity, that his teddy bear did it. He too becomes indignant when I suggest thats not the way it really happened.

Please, perhaps you present the worst places in my text, showing that indignation?
 
I may have missed something, because I don't find the translation particularly comprehensible, but as far as I can tell, they are saying that they did not discover the cause of the disruptions.

Sorry for the quality of the translation. But without "light editing" it was still much more funny. I would presume that English speaking people ought to get the essentials from the text. The "language curtain" is always a problem. My English is so poor and my time so limited that I cannot do much more.

Yes, it is essential that the happenings remained nearly totally inexplicable.
 
This is a long post, but I know you can handle it.


Yes, it is essential that the happenings remained nearly totally inexplicable.


And yet, even though the magician in the scene found a string hanging from the ceiling, and, even though the criminologist in the scene reported one of his officers seeing Annemarie (the central character) pushing a lamp when she thought no one was looking - you still are, by your own words, absolutely convinced that this is a genuine case of paranormal / psi activity.

So, on the other hand, we have reports of suspicious strings attached in the ceiling and clear physical action (magician & police), and on the other hand we have reports of things moving and happening with no apparent physical cause (parapsychologist, physicists, phone company workers & some of the law firm workers). By definition, the first group is used to dealing with tricks and frauds, the second group is not, one could say that because of Bender and possibly Karger, the second group is even a little prone to let their imaginations cloud their judgement.

Also, keep in mind that the evidence value of the videos you have produced is close to zero. Or do you disagree? You say it shows only a small part of the available video material, ok, have you seen the rest of the material? If so, could you describe it to us in detail, or better yet, present it to us so we can see for ourself. This is what Wikipedia says about it:

There is also no evidence on video that matches the more extreme (and, therefore, paranormal) events said to have occurred.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenheim_Poltergeist

The "shyness" effect, do you really give it much value? I mean, there is, after all, a way more probable explanation to why nothing happens when it's being looked at.

One more thing, could you comment on these for me:

Kuko 4000 said:
Couple of thoughts:

- Was Annemarie, the central character, ever tested in any proper way? If not, why?

- The phenomenon lasted for a few month, where these the only guys to investigate the phenomenon?

- In what kind of journals were the physicists investigations published? Were they peer reviewed, and by whom?

- Why is there so little information about Annemarie? What happened to her, any interviews, is she still alive?


Thanks.
 
Last edited:
There was also sceptical magician Allan, who noticed the studies used plastic pendulum nylon string depend on the roof. Thus, the book Allan, Schiff und Kramer: "Falsche Geister - echte Schwindler" was declared the whole affair spoofing. " Quite a bold claim, where a whole, taking into account. It would have been a miracle, if not central, and other staff should be strictly observed and the findings of the investigation, and even the criminal act.


Btw. have you read this book? I'd like to know exactly what they had to say about this case.
 
Yes, it is essential that the happenings remained nearly totally inexplicable.

I don't think that you understand what "inexplicable" means. It means "impossible to explain", not "unable to explain". Since almost all of these events were unwitnessed, how can anyone say what possibilities are ruled-out?

Linda
 
I agree otherwise, except that magicians are often overrated.


If you watch some videos of Randi easily replicating the tricks of Geller (and those are not difficult ones), you might change your mind..........about magicians as well as about Geller.....:)

But I personally would absolutely call in a magician in a case where physical phenomena are possible and there is time enough with continuing phenomena.


Good.

Often physical and psychological situations are difficult to separate from each other. I had in my mind a situation when an often swinging or rotating picture on the wall was video recorded. It did not move, but when the tape came to end and the recording stopped, then the picture moved. The stopping is physically a smaller event than psychologically. It was told that the recording succeeded later once.


Where´s the video, then?


There is a "shyness" in psi-phenomena, not only for reasons that tricks are more difficult to do during tight controlling.


Evidence?


I am convinced that Annemarie or/and somebody else would not have been able to accomplish all the numerous and varied phenomena by tricks.


You being convinced does not equal evidence.

A super-magician would have been needed to fool the police, electricity and telephone technicians, physicists, parapsychologists, the personal of the office and many guests there.


Your opinion, no evidence.


But naturally there is no absolute certainty.


Yes. But it is the best case for PSI?


I mean that no natural causes were found to explain the phenomena. Therefore there is no help to know possible natural causes, when there was no evidence of their workings there. That does not mean that there were "supernatural" causes – the phenomena simply remained unexplained.


Yes. But it is the best case for PSI?

I have no "burden of proof" here.


That depends. If you claim as a fact, that the Rosenheim story is a case of PSI, you indeed have the burden of proof.
If you say it´s only your opinion, not based on facts, but on feelings or something, then you are right.


But possibly I have some interest to discuss some possibilities. You are free to have your opinions indefinitely.


So we are only discussing opinions, not facts? To be honest, I hoped for a bit more, but O.K.:


1. natural causes: We know that those exist.

2. trickery: we know that a lot of "paranormal" events were faked. Obviously even in Rosenheim.

3. something paranormal (PSI)
No proof ever of PSI existing. You even agree, because you say Rosenheim is the best case and admitted that
the phenomena simply remained unexplained


So now please tell me, why you think number three is the most probable one.
 
And yet, even though the magician in the scene found a string hanging from the ceiling, and, even though the criminologist in the scene reported one of his officers seeing Annemarie (the central character) pushing a lamp when she thought no one was looking - you still are, by your own words, absolutely convinced that this is a genuine case of paranormal / psi activity.

There is an explanation to the string. I even have a photo in a book showing a plastic pen or something hanging down on it. It was a test pendulum hanging near a lamp that had swung earlier, to see if the pendulum would swing with the lamp. Later was found that the lamp was swinging but the pendulum did not swing. In my short description of the case I wrote: "Paikalla kävi myös skeptinen taikuri Allan, joka huomasi tutkimuksissa käytetyn muoviheilurin nailonisen ripustuslangan riippumassa katosta." So that at least you ought to know what the string was. If you have such a bad yeld in reading articles, so it is regrettable.

When it is told that Annemarie was seen pushing a lamp, so that is not quite simple. The lamps were hanging down from the ceiling, unreachable directly by hand. How did she push the lamp?

I would guess that I have not used the expression "absolutely convinced". Would you, please, tell where I have written so?

So, on the other hand, we have reports of suspicious strings attached in the ceiling and clear physical action (magician & police), and on the other hand we have reports of things moving and happening with no apparent physical cause (parapsychologist, physicists, phone company workers & some of the law firm workers). By definition, the first group is used to dealing with tricks and frauds, the second group is not, one could say that because of the second group is even a little prone to let their imaginations cloud their judgement.

I don't know enough about Dr. Karger to say much about him. At least I am not as spiritually inclined as he appears to be. Instead I have read much what prof. Bender has said, and in my opinion he was too gullible and not always meticulous enogh in his work. But I am rather sure that both men have been very honest in their work. Therefore I can well believe all that they have said about simple and concrete happenings.

Also, keep in mind that the evidence value of the videos you have produced is close to zero. Or do you disagree? You say it shows only a small part of the available video material, ok, have you seen the rest of the material? If so, could you describe it to us in detail, or better yet, present it to us so we can see for ourself. This is what Wikipedia says about it: [the address not allowed for me to post]

I have never said that the YouTube video clips would have any value as evidence. If you have good knowledge of the background, then they have much more value. And I have not seen the rest of the films so there we are.

I assume you know the reliability of wikipedia. It is best not to rely very much in the information there, without checking in better sources.
 
<snip>

Initially, was supposed to disruptions caused by defects in the electricity grid. In electricity generating expert came to investigate the case and installed 16.11.1967 recorder, which could be measured in an apartment grid, optionally, either tension or the flow of power. Inappropriate treatment to prevent the recorder was used to begin a long-time sealed, when the paper and a pen were not reach protecting glass below. When the sealing of later shut down the paper to facilitate the exchange, the so-printing process is not subject to adjustments.

Recorders showed raised peaks, as well as suspension of the power consumption and, at times, the pen hit the top of the measuring up. The results, however, were inexplicable features, which were also seen attached to the reports of recorded images. Although the recorder seemed to 50 ampere flows, as fuses are not went off. The other hand, fuses went off without a corresponding peaks recorder. As a result, Fuse went off and chart peaks did not correspond to each other.

The chard recorder paper was the speed of 1 mm / min, and the peaks accounted for more than one case, even a minute's time limits for the corresponding loops and arches. The pen is not the structure of rigidity due to have been able to move the paper direction of travel, so that the loops were due to confidence in the paper circulation. The paper periodic increase in off the chassis refers to the fact that the pen came a couple of times tears the paper. Sealed chart the paper could not reach a deal without the opening of the seal, and without the sealing of the paper moving trace describe, it would have been very difficult.

<snip>

Parapsychology Professor Hans Bender became the site of two assistant 1.12.1967. The electrical equipment inexplicably missed because of disruptions he called in addition to the site of physicist who measured electricity grid and office rooms phenomena with a four-channel memory oscilloscope. It was measured using a network of electric current, changes in the electric, magnetic fields and sounds in the air using a microphone. Fast met because of the memory oscilloscope did not enter the entire time, but the recording was launched from a visit to small changes in measurable levels of channels.

Oscilloscope did not confirm the chart peaks and measurements, found no environmental them. Any chart of the results can be definitely conclude that the unexplained peaks are not caused by mains duty shocks, but mechanical force effect recorder. The mechanical effect of also refers to the fact that the broken light bulbs was the incandescent wire sometimes intact.

<snip>

So the "sealed" mechanical chart recorder showed wild fluctuations, including loops, in the power but the "Oscilloscope did not confirm the chart peaks and measurements". This suggests to me that someone was giving the chart recorder a good mechanical thump when no one was looking. Is there any indication that it was under observation at all times?
 
There is an explanation to the string. I even have a photo in a book showing a plastic pen or something hanging down on it. It was a test pendulum hanging near a lamp that had swung earlier, to see if the pendulum would swing with the lamp. Later was found that the lamp was swinging but the pendulum did not swing. In my short description of the case I wrote: "Paikalla kävi myös skeptinen taikuri Allan, joka huomasi tutkimuksissa käytetyn muoviheilurin nailonisen ripustuslangan riippumassa katosta." So that at least you ought to know what the string was. If you have such a bad yeld in reading articles, so it is regrettable.


That's why I asked if you have read the book, to give me more details of what they reported. So, have you actually read the book, or where did you get the information that this is all that they reported? I too, find it unreasonable to dismiss the whole case only by misunderstanding a piece of research equipment.

When it is told that Annemarie was seen pushing a lamp, so that is not quite simple. The lamps were hanging down from the ceiling, unreachable directly by hand. How did she push the lamp?


How do you know they were talking about the lamps in the ceiling? If she hadn't got caught that time, there would've been stories about lamps flying off the tables. And in any case, who is to say that they didn't see her pushing the hanging lamps with a common broom? How much leeway and value are you willing to give to testimonials in this case?



I would guess that I have not used the expression "absolutely convinced". Would you, please, tell where I have written so?


25.08.2008
14:34

ME sanoo:
eli oliko rosenheim mielestäsi psi-ilmiö?
ME sanoo:
ja kiitos selvennyksestä
YOU sanoo:
Ehdottomasti.

+

ME sanoo:
mitä mieltä itse olet, oliko kyseessä huijaus vai aito psi-ilmiö?
YOU sanoo:
Aito ilmiö, varmuutta hipoen. Yhtäkään täysin varmaa yksittäistapausta ei ole olemassa.

So, just to clarify it to the others, first you say "absolutely" when I ask if the Rosenheim case was a psi-phenomenon. Then, just to be fair, later on when I ask whether you think it's a genuine psi-case or a hoax, you say that, "a genuine psi-phenomenom, touching on certainty". And just to make sure that I don't treat you unfairly, what you go on to say right after that is that "there is no single 100% sure case". On our previous discussions you've also said that, "for all practical purposes, this is a genuine psi-case". I don't think I've misrepresented your stance here, or, then you have done it yourself first.


ETA: having looked at this again, one could always say that you very slightly adjusted your stance in the few minutes between those two statements, but in any case, that would be concentrating on something non-essential. Bottom line is: you strongly think / believe that it's a real case of psi-phenomenon, I don't.


Instead I have read much what prof. Bender has said, and in my opinion he was too gullible and not always meticulous enogh in his work. But I am rather sure that both men have been very honest in their work. Therefore I can well believe all that they have said about simple and concrete happenings.


I'm not in the business of doubting their honesty, at least too much, however, what I am doubting is their ability to find out what really happened in Rosenheim. Pretty much what you said, gullibility and lack of care is not the ideal combination when dealing with these things, especially when he (and possibly at least Karger as well) was a believer himself.

I have never said that the YouTube video clips would have any value as evidence. If you have good knowledge of the background, then they have much more value. And I have not seen the rest of the films so there we are.

I assume you know the reliability of wikipedia. It is best not to rely very much in the information there, without checking in better sources.


You did provide the videos as your sources that convinced you, but yeah, so here we are then, the videos are useless. What is it then that you suggest for us to focus on to share your confidence? It can't be the missing video material can it?

You have also inquired me that: "from a scientific perspective, what is the problem in the Rosenheim case?"

I think Wikipedia is a very useful source of information, I also know how it works, so I don't rely on it. Are you saying that there is substantial video material of the paranormal phenomena available somewhere, or what was your point re Wiki?
 
Last edited:
One more thing, could you comment on these for me:

- Was Annemarie, the central character, ever tested in any proper way? If not, why?

- The phenomenon lasted for a few month, where these the only guys to investigate the phenomenon?

- In what kind of journals were the physicists investigations published? Were they peer reviewed, and by whom?

- Why is there so little information about Annemarie? What happened to her, any interviews, is she still alive?

Thanks.

Annemarie was tested in ESP and PK tests. ESP gave highly significant results and PK random results. Proper way? The results are here:


What do you mean with "the only guys to investigate the phenomenon"? Impossible to answer.

I don't understand why you don't use the information you have in your hands. The physicist article was published as follows:
F. Karger und G. Zicha (1968): Physikalische Untersuchung des Spukfalles in Rosenheim. Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der Psychologie Vol. 11 s.113-131.
I don't know any details about the peer review.

You have probably seen Annemarie yourself, as a young woman and in ripe age. So, if you have seen the color video in YouTube. Why so little information? Who knows. Does not interest me.
 
Annemarie was tested in ESP and PK tests. ESP gave highly significant results and PK random results. Proper way? The results are here:

Doesn't that show it wasn't psi if they tested for PK and couldn't find it?

Linda
 
Annemarie was tested in ESP and PK tests. ESP gave highly significant results and PK random results. Proper way? The results are here:


Yeah, what I'm interested in is the way the tests were conducted. The value of the results depend on that. Furthermore, did other scientists try to repeat them?

What do you mean with "the only guys to investigate the phenomenon"? Impossible to answer.


I mean that if I had witnessed something like this I would have raised a storm and asked every single person I know and don't know to investigate and familiarize with the phenomenon. Only one magician was interested in this case? Only two scientists were interested? Sounds strange to me.


I don't understand why you don't use the information you have in your hands. The physicist article was published as follows:
F. Karger und G. Zicha (1968): Physikalische Untersuchung des Spukfalles in Rosenheim. Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der Psychologie Vol. 11 s.113-131.
I don't know any details about the peer review.


As far as I understand, this is a journal of parapsychology and occult. As others have commented earlier, this is not the kind of journal that most skeptics are looking for, do you see the reason why?

And like I've said before, I don't understand much German, would it be too much to ask for if you'd compile a clear list of the things that convince you about this case? I really want to know why you are so convinced.


You have probably seen Annemarie yourself, as a young woman and in ripe age. So, if you have seen the color video in YouTube. Why so little information? Who knows. Does not interest me.


Well, I know if I wanted to know more about the case she'd be the first person I'd turn to. Then, and now. Sounds strange to me.
 
This discussion has not reached the firm detail level yet. I am waiting.

You are waiting? You are waiting? You're the one who's making the claim. We're expecting you to provide some details. We are waiting.
 
Last edited:
So the "sealed" mechanical chart recorder showed wild fluctuations, including loops, in the power but the "Oscilloscope did not confirm the chart peaks and measurements". This suggests to me that someone was giving the chart recorder a good mechanical thump when no one was looking. Is there any indication that it was under observation at all times?

Thank you for this sensible post. The information that I give here is in the two opening articles about the case. You can see the old chart recorder at least in the YouTube video with color. It has a shielding glass in front of the paper and pen. The glass was sealed in the beginning, to prevent tampering with the recorder.

There are really loops and "impossible" curves in some charts, visible in the photos Kuko 4000 posted. There are also many spikes visible, some even stopped to the top of the range. The problem with the initial measurements was, that the breaking off by the automatic fuses and the spikes were not simultaneous. The fuses broke off without any spike in the chart and vice versa did not break off with too high spikes.

Later the physicists used a memory oscilloscope to check the working of the chart recorder. They could measure only voltage with the oscilloscope. They found that there actually happened no bigger spikes at all in the electrical system.

Here a quote from the article by the physicists:

"Wir befanden uns jedoch bei den meisten Ausschlägen in unmittelbarer Nähe (1/2 m) des Schreibers, während sich die übrigen Personen mehrere Meter von dem Schreiber entfernt aushalten. Einerseits achteten wir darauf, dass kein Trick durch psykologishe Ablenkung der Beobachter möglich war, zum anderen wurde durch mechanishe Sperre verhindert, dass der Schreiber durch dünne Fäden o.ä. von aussen beeinflusst werden konnte. Da der Schreiber ausserdem noch mit einem Sichtglas abgedeckt ist, war bei den anomalen Ausschlägen, bei denen wir anwesend waren, mit Sicherheit eine (z. B. getrickte) mechanische Manipulation ausgeschlossen."

My translation:

"We were, however, at the time of the most spikes in immediate vicinity (1/2 meters) of the recorder, and other persons were in the distance of several meters from the recorder. For the first we were careful not to let the spectators do tricks using psychological misleading. For the second we used mechanical restraints to prevent that the recorder would have been influenced with thin strings etc. from outside. When the recorder moreover is covered with a glass shield, so the spikes that were recorded in our presence were certainly such that a mechanical manipulation (for example by tricks) was excluded."
 
Thank you for this sensible post. The information that I give here is in the two opening articles about the case. You can see the old chart recorder at least in the YouTube video with color. It has a shielding glass in front of the paper and pen. The glass was sealed in the beginning, to prevent tampering with the recorder.

There are really loops and "impossible" curves in some charts, visible in the photos Kuko 4000 posted. There are also many spikes visible, some even stopped to the top of the range. The problem with the initial measurements was, that the breaking off by the automatic fuses and the spikes were not simultaneous. The fuses broke off without any spike in the chart and vice versa did not break off with too high spikes.

Later the physicists used a memory oscilloscope to check the working of the chart recorder. They could measure only voltage with the oscilloscope. They found that there actually happened no bigger spikes at all in the electrical system.

Here a quote from the article by the physicists:

"Wir befanden uns jedoch bei den meisten Ausschlägen in unmittelbarer Nähe (1/2 m) des Schreibers, während sich die übrigen Personen mehrere Meter von dem Schreiber entfernt aushalten. Einerseits achteten wir darauf, dass kein Trick durch psykologishe Ablenkung der Beobachter möglich war, zum anderen wurde durch mechanishe Sperre verhindert, dass der Schreiber durch dünne Fäden o.ä. von aussen beeinflusst werden konnte. Da der Schreiber ausserdem noch mit einem Sichtglas abgedeckt ist, war bei den anomalen Ausschlägen, bei denen wir anwesend waren, mit Sicherheit eine (z. B. getrickte) mechanische Manipulation ausgeschlossen."

My translation:

"We were, however, at the time of the most spikes in immediate vicinity (1/2 meters) of the recorder, and other persons were in the distance of several meters from the recorder. For the first we were careful not to let the spectators do tricks using psychological misleading. For the second we used mechanical restraints to prevent that the recorder would have been influenced with thin strings etc. from outside. When the recorder moreover is covered with a glass shield, so the spikes that were recorded in our presence were certainly such that a mechanical manipulation (for example by tricks) was excluded."

That seems reasonable. I do note that he does not say he saw the spikes and loops take place and I have to say that, as he was not a magician, he cannot really say the results were not manipulated. What was actually observed -- the non-simultaneity of the events and the lack of support of the mechanical recorder events vs the recording oscilloscope arouse a degree of suspicion in my mind.
 
Thank you for this sensible post. The information that I give here is in the two opening articles about the case. You can see the old chart recorder at least in the YouTube video with color. It has a shielding glass in front of the paper and pen. The glass was sealed in the beginning, to prevent tampering with the recorder.

There are really loops and "impossible" curves in some charts, visible in the photos Kuko 4000 posted. There are also many spikes visible, some even stopped to the top of the range. The problem with the initial measurements was, that the breaking off by the automatic fuses and the spik
es were not simultaneous. The fuses broke off without any spike in the chart and vice versa did not break off with too high spikes.

Later the physicists used a memory oscilloscope to check the working of the chart recorder. They could measure only voltage with the oscilloscope. They found that there actually happened no bigger spikes at all in the electrical system.

Here a quote from the article by the physicists:

"Wir befanden uns jedoch bei den meisten Ausschlägen in unmittelbarer Nähe (1/2 m) des Schreibers, während sich die übrigen Personen mehrere Meter von dem Schreiber entfernt aushalten. Einerseits achteten wir darauf, dass kein Trick durch psykologishe Ablenkung der Beobachter möglich war, zum anderen wurde durch mechanishe Sperre verhindert, dass der Schreiber durch dünne Fäden o.ä. von aussen beeinflusst werden konnte. Da der Schreiber ausserdem noch mit einem Sichtglas abgedeckt ist, war bei den anomalen Ausschlägen, bei denen wir anwesend waren, mit Sicherheit eine (z. B. getrickte) mechanische Manipulation ausgeschlossen."

My translation:

"We were, however, at the time of the most spikes in immediate vicinity (1/2 meters) of the recorder, and other persons were in the distance of several meters from the recorder. For the first we were careful not to let the spectators do tricks using psychological misleading. For the second we used mechanical restraints to prevent that the recorder would have been influenced with thin strings etc. from outside. When the recorder moreover is covered with a glass shield, so the spikes that were recorded in our presence were certainly such that a mechanical manipulation (for example by tricks) was excluded."

What struck me about the article was how elaborately they investigated any possible physics means of influencing the recorder and how quickly, and vaguely, they rule out trickery.
In this case: What mechanical restraints are they talking about?

Unfortunately the article as posted by Kuko is missing several pages.

Page 119:
[NB:this only talks about one specific recording!]
"Ein Betrachter, der die Vorgeschichte der Messstreifen nicht kennt, würde zu dem Schluss kommen, dass die Ausschläge eher durch Führen der Schreiberfeder mit der Hand als durch elektrische Einwirkung zustande gekommen seien."
My translation:
"An observer who does not know the previous history of the chart recording would come to the conclusion that the spikes have come to be by leading the writing pen with a hand rather than by electrical influence."

Furthermore, they seem to be making the implicit assumption that all recorded spikes should have the same cause. Yet it does seem quite plausible that, assuming trickery, that only a part of the spikes was caused by manually leading the pen, but those spikes which were witnessed in the making by different means.
On the diagram we can see that the chart recorder and the oscillograph were placed in different rooms. This would seem to make various manipulations possible which could potentially explain discongruent readings.

The lack of explicit attempts to catch lo-tech human manipulation constitutes a serious omission. One can excuse the physicists insofar as they were tasked with finding a fault in the electrical grid while it would have been up to the police to catch fraudulent manipulation. Still, given that omission, the conclusions Karger and Zicha draw are quite unwarranted.
 

Back
Top Bottom