The Rosenheim Case

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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.

Thank you GnaGnaMan. This confirms what I said in my previous post, that the description "arouse(d) a degree of suspicion in my mind".

And welcome to the Forum!

 

[Kuko 4000]

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.

Bump.

 

[Lusikka]

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.

Fine, we are discussing the details at last and not only opinions and principles. Naturally the interpreting principles here are over-pessimistic regarding the possibility of real psi-phenomena.

As far as I have understood the reference articles, there were not observed electrically caused spikes in the electric grid at all. All the spikes were registered only with the chart recorder and appeared to have mechanical causes. Using a new cable taking the electricity directly from the transformer station did not help.

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.

Yes, there is very much detailed information missing from the articles, but a lot of work was done. Bender writes that all the vast report material from police and thelephone and electrical companies was planned to be published in book form. As far as I know, such a book does not exist. There was also all the time held diary of the happenings and that has not been published either.

 

[Lusikka]

There happened at least following phenomena in Rosenheim:

1. Telephone disturbances
- interrupted calls
- all the 4 telephones ringing simultaneously, nobody calling
- extremely high telephone bills
- frequent calls to current time registered
- the call time counter showing calls although nobody was speaking

2. Electricity disturbances
- the ceiling fluorescent tubes went out; turned in their sockets, contact broken
- one fluorescent tube fell down and was shattered
- light bulbs exploded
- automatic fuses blew
- chart recorder measuring high spikes in voltage and current

3. Mechanical disturbances
- sharp and loud bangs heard, not from surfaces but from the air
- developing solution from the copier on the floor
- lamps on ceiling swinging, lampshades shattered
- pictures on the wall swinging, rotating and falling down
- a heavy 175 kg files cabinet moved twice 30 cm from the wall

Rather much to be explained. Somebody from the staff was a super-magician? Annemarie? Sometimes when she was walking in the corridor, light bulbs exploded and the pieces flew on her.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

As far as I have understood the reference articles, there were not observed electrically caused spikes in the electric grid at all. All the spikes were registered only with the chart recorder and appeared to have mechanical causes. Using a new cable taking the electricity directly from the transformer station did not help.

They also installed a generator. That would not prevent voltage spikes caused by tampering within the bureau.

They conclude that voltage spikes could not have been responsible because they usually only had the pen moving but not the chart paper. Movement of the chart paper should have been triggered by the oscillograph.
I am not sure if I understand how exactly that was supposed to work. This technology is totally alien to me.

Page 115/116
"Eigenartig erschien uns vor allem die Tatsache, dass nur selten ein Schreiberausschlag im Vollzug gesehen wurde, meistens nur die schon geschriebene Kurve einige Sekunden danach (in den Fällen in denen Ausschläge im Vollzug gesehen wurden liefen sie mit einer Impulsdauer von ca. 1 Sekunde ab)."
"Strange to us seemed mostly the fact that only rarely a pen movement was seen in action; mostly only the written curve a few seconds later ( in those cases where movements were seen in action the impulse duration was ca. 1 second)."
What I wonder here is how they know that a cuve was written seconds before it was noticed. I see no time code on those recordings.

Page 116 cont.:
"Wir befanden uns jedoch bei den meisten Schreiberausschlägen in unmittelbarer Nähe (1/2 m) des Schreibers, während sich die übrigen Personen mehrere Meter vom Schreiber entfernt aufhielten."
"However, we were during most writing movements in immediate vicinity (1/2m) of the chart writer while the other persons were several meteres away from the writer."

On page 155, they also mention that sometimes spikes were accompanied by banging noises (which they compare to an electrical discharge of some kind). Sometimes they heard bangs without chart recordings, too.

There's not really enough info to make a good guess but I'll speculate a bit:
One or both physicists sit in the reception. Anna-Maria sneaks past them and plays with the writing pen. A couple minutes later she bangs a book on a table somewhere. The phycisists jump up look at the chart and find that the bang was accompanied by an anomalous spike.
So, the physicists keep a sharp eye on the writer and stay in the hallway. AM sneaks past them, and messes about with the oscillograph, producing more anomalous spikes.
Well, maybe not.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

There happened at least following phenomena in Rosenheim:

1. Telephone disturbances
- interrupted calls
- all the 4 telephones ringing simultaneously, nobody calling
- extremely high telephone bills
- frequent calls to current time registered
- the call time counter showing calls although nobody was speaking

2. Electricity disturbances
- the ceiling fluorescent tubes went out; turned in their sockets, contact broken
- one fluorescent tube fell down and was shattered
- light bulbs exploded
- automatic fuses blew
- chart recorder measuring high spikes in voltage and current

3. Mechanical disturbances
- sharp and loud bangs heard, not from surfaces but from the air
- developing solution from the copier on the floor
- lamps on ceiling swinging, lampshades shattered
- pictures on the wall swinging, rotating and falling down
- a heavy 175 kg files cabinet moved twice 30 cm from the wall

Rather much to be explained. Somebody from the staff was a super-magician? Annemarie? Sometimes when she was walking in the corridor, light bulbs exploded and the pieces flew on her.

Source?

 

[fls]

Fine, we are discussing the details at last and not only opinions and principles. Naturally the interpreting principles here are over-pessimistic regarding the possibility of real psi-phenomena.

You haven't yet explained how the details would be evidence for psi-phenomena. I agree that science is pessimistic. On the other hand, the wonderful discoveries that have been made in the last 100 years or so have been a direct result of that pessimism, so I'm not inclined to throw it out.

Linda

 

[Lusikka]

Source?

The first article by Bender in my reference list plus the book by Gauld&Cornell. They appear to have read also such articles by Bender which I don't have in my files.

 

[Lusikka]

You haven't yet explained how the details would be evidence for psi-phenomena. I agree that science is pessimistic. On the other hand, the wonderful discoveries that have been made in the last 100 years or so have been a direct result of that pessimism, so I'm not inclined to throw it out.

Linda

I think that well confirmed observations that have remained unexplained are evidence for psi-phenomena. I also am very fond of science and to have a critical mind is very important. But one ought to let new confirmed information come through and have an effect. And it would also be nice with a little curiosity.

 

[fls]

I think that well confirmed observations that have remained unexplained are evidence for psi-phenomena.

How so? Wouldn't they equally be evidence of invisible flying unicorns? I'm not trying to be flippant. If the only characteristic you are looking for is 'unexplained', then can't anyone make up anything to explain it as long as it's something you can't or won't bother testing for?

I also am very fond of science and to have a critical mind is very important. But one ought to let new confirmed information come through and have an effect. And it would also be nice with a little curiosity.

I agree. And I've always wondered why parapsychologists are so incurious about discovering what sorts of things can be expected in the absence of psi.

Linda

 

[Lusikka]

They also installed a generator. That would not prevent voltage spikes caused by tampering within the bureau.

They conclude that voltage spikes could not have been responsible because they usually only had the pen moving but not the chart paper. Movement of the chart paper should have been triggered by the oscillograph.
I am not sure if I understand how exactly that was supposed to work. This technology is totally alien to me.

Thank you for the to the point post. Actually the chart recorder worked quite independently. The recording of the oscillograph was triggered by a signal stronger than the preset value.

On page 155, they also mention that sometimes spikes were accompanied by banging noises (which they compare to an electrical discharge of some kind). Sometimes they heard bangs without chart recordings, too.

There's not really enough info to make a good guess but I'll speculate a bit:
One or both physicists sit in the reception. Anna-Maria sneaks past them and plays with the writing pen. A couple minutes later she bangs a book on a table somewhere. The phycisists jump up look at the chart and find that the bang was accompanied by an anomalous spike.
So, the physicists keep a sharp eye on the writer and stay in the hallway. AM sneaks past them, and messes about with the oscillograph, producing more anomalous spikes.
Well, maybe not.

Not so bad but some comments are needed. The paper of the recorder was really moving at steady speed so that the occurrences could be timed well. To touch the pen was not so easy through the sealed glass. The bang of a book resembles rather distantly the electrical crackle.

 

[fls]

The paper of the recorder was really moving at steady speed so that the occurrences could be timed well.

The text you provided earlier stated that the paper speed was 1mm/min. That sounds like it would only allow a gross record of timing.

Linda

 

[Sherman Bay]

Randi seems to have a very low opinion of scientists, presumably because his role as a debunker has meant that most of his experience has been with those who have turned to woo. It's disappointing to see others repeating his silly, unsupported claims.

On the contrary. Randi has a very high opinion of scientists, when they are working in their field of expertise. A chemist is not qualified to detect trickery in a card trick any more than Randi is qualified to handle complex chemical reactions.

I think that well confirmed observations that have remained unexplained are evidence for psi-phenomena.

Things that are not explained may be:

1. Explained in the future
2. Not explainable because important data is not available
3. Not explainable because the evidence (like eyewitnesses) is faulty or fraudulent
4. PSI phenomena

Of these choices, given that fraud happens, testimony is often faked or inaccurate, and more evidence sometimes come to light, I would choose the more logical 1..3 options rather than the 4th which requires rewriting science from the ground up.

I also am very fond of science and to have a critical mind is very important.

Perhaps you need to define "critical mind." It means proportioning one's belief to the evidence.Poor evidence, weak conclusions.

But one ought to let new confirmed information come through and have an effect. And it would also be nice with a little curiosity.

Curiosity, besides killing the cat, is a good thing. But it shouldn't blind you to the facts. And "confirmed evidence" might not be what it's cracked up to be, especially if the "evidence" seems to overturn well-established principles.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I think that well confirmed observations that have remained unexplained are evidence for psi-phenomena. I also am very fond of science and to have a critical mind is very important. But one ought to let new confirmed information come through and have an effect. And it would also be nice with a little curiosity.

There are serious problems with that reasoning. They have been, at least, partly addressed in this thread and elsewhere but I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Psi phenomena cease to be that as soon as they are explained. Usually when an effect is discovered and named it is still referred to under that name even when it is explained in terms of other known effects. This is not just a logical problem it also means that anyone who wants to study psi has a strong disincentive not to find an explanation for a putative psi effect.

Any high-profile crime is well confirmed and researched. Still some remain unsolved. Should we include those as potential psi phenomena?
What about unexplained accidents?

If something cannot be explained with known scientific principles after an extended effort to do so then it is unlikely to be explainable in terms of these principles.
This seems to be a common psi reasoning. It seems quite plausible on its face.

One problem with the sentence is that explainable is undefined. Is it enough to find a potential explanation or is it necessary to demonstrate the applicability ot that explanation? If the former then one would have to turn to hollywood-style psi to find something unexplainable. If the the latter then it becomes impossible to explain virtually any historic casse.
But that's just sloppiness due to an undefined term.

The logical problem is this:
By definition something that is unlikely should happen rarely.
In this case: If we investigate a large number of cases, all of which are explainable within known science, then a small number should still resist our efforts.
With Poltergeist cases, or even psi in general, that seems to be exactly the case. There is some unknown but large number of cases that never get off the ground because they are immediately found out to be just something ordinary. A few go on to become intensely researched high-profile cases and then trickery is often found. Only a tiny number of the total remains stubbornly mysterious despite being well documented.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

There happened at least following phenomena in Rosenheim:

Here is how I would produce the following phenomena:

1. Telephone disturbances
- interrupted calls

Pushing the right button on the telephone system.

- all the 4 telephones ringing simultaneously, nobody calling

Pushing the right button on the telephone system.

- extremely high telephone bills
- frequent calls to current time registered

Seems to be twice the same thing.
Making lots of calls.

- the call time counter showing calls although nobody was speaking

Discretely making a call.

2. Electricity disturbances
- the ceiling fluorescent tubes went out; turned in their sockets, contact broken

Turning the tubes in their sockets, if necessary by standing on a chair.

- one fluorescent tube fell down and was shattered

Dropping a tube.

- light bulbs exploded

Hitting bulbs with a suitable implement. Say a stapler.

- automatic fuses blew

Manually switching the fuses/ shortcircuiting the system.

- chart recorder measuring high spikes in voltage and current

I think my previous speculation needs only a little adaptation to account for your correction. Thanks btw, I read the text sloppily.

3. Mechanical disturbances
- sharp and loud bangs heard, not from surfaces but from the air

Shattering a light bulb, hitting a book on a surface, etc...

- developing solution from the copier on the floor

Opening the copier, pouring out the solution.

- lamps on ceiling swinging, lampshades shattered

Jumping and giving the lamps a good shove.

- pictures on the wall swinging, rotating and falling down

Pushing the pictures.

- a heavy 175 kg files cabinet moved twice 30 cm from the wall

Prying the cabinet with the aid of a lever, maybe the back of a chair.

Rather much to be explained. Somebody from the staff was a super-magician? Annemarie? Sometimes when she was walking in the corridor, light bulbs exploded and the pieces flew on her.

I don't really see anything there that would require a "super-magician". The only things where a way to produce them is not immediately obvious is the stuff involving the telephone system and the chart recordings. However, asserting that this means it would have been difficult seems speculation.
Handling the telephone system to that effect may have been very simple to a young secretary but incomprehensible to an elderly boss or visitor. Much the same as computers are today.
As to the chart recordings, well, I guess it depends on how implausible one thinks it is that an 18-year old could fool some adults. Judging both from my experience of playing pranks as a kid and from my knowledge of perception I'd say it is far more plausible than we like to think.

The big question to me is what did people actually see. EG: Did anyone actually see a light bulb explode? Who and how long afterwards did they report it?
Maybe, sometime in the next couple of weeks, I'll pass by one of the relevant books in a used book store. Maybe that will help me with some of my questions.

 

[Georg]

Here is how I would produce the following phenomena:


Pushing the right button on the telephone system.

Pushing the right button on the telephone system.

Seems to be twice the same thing.
Making lots of calls.

Discretely making a call.

Turning the tubes in their sockets, if necessary by standing on a chair.

Dropping a tube.

Hitting bulbs with a suitable implement. Say a stapler.

Manually switching the fuses/ shortcircuiting the system.

I think my previous speculation needs only a little adaptation to account for your correction. Thanks btw, I read the text sloppily.

Shattering a light bulb, hitting a book on a surface, etc...

Opening the copier, pouring out the solution.

Jumping and giving the lamps a good shove.

Pushing the pictures.

Prying the cabinet with the aid of a lever, maybe the back of a chair.



I don't really see anything there that would require a "super-magician".

spoilsport .

No news from either Dr.Karger or the G.W.U.P. yet.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I am wondering what this same examination would have turned up on the Alpha kids before they came forward?

All kinds of scientists; monitoring equipment; safeguards against any form of trickery; witnesses that would swear that the equipment was untouched or impossible to mess with; etc. etc.

And yet . . . .

 

[Sherman Bay]

Lusikka, with regards to your claim of inability to explain events, it's possible you don't have enough data to explain it. Example: Many stage magic tricks are done with a curtain obscuring parts of some aparratus. Why is that curtain there? You can be nearly 100% sure that if it wasn't, the method would be revealed. With critical parts of the trick obscured, it looks more like true magic. With them exposed, it's just the standard functioning of an unremarkable machine. Who would pay to see stage magic where nothing was hidden?

The events spoken here suffer from the same data flaw. The observers were watching from a particular vantage point. Seen from another, the paranormal event might look quite ordinary.

And another thing...It's common for tricksters to throw something up behind them, then act surprised when the crash is heard and everyone turns around to see. Although no one was looking at the object before it crashed, a typical description that is passed around later implies that all eyes were focused on it before, during and after. Again, a magician knows how to fool people like this, but the average person doesn't have that specialized knowledge.

You might want to read some of Randi's books on Geller, who always seemed to be present when things went flying. Often his assistant, Shippi Strang, was lurking around, "discovering" things that had been strangely moved or altered.

Basically, people are gullible and can be easily fooled.

 

[Georg]

I received two mails from Dr. Karger just some minutes ago. The first one was text, I´ll just copy it here and try to translate the first paragraph since it was written in German:

Sehr geehrter Herr xxxxx,
eben hatte ich in die Forumsseite geschaut und festgestellt, dass Sie mein e-mail vom Montag nicht erhalten haben. Vielleicht ist die Größe der Anlage daran schuld. Deshalb sende ich Ihnen mein untenstehendes e-mail zum zweiten Mal, diesmal ohne Anlage. Ich versuche es noch einmal mit der Anlage allein. Können Sie mir bitte mitteilen, wenn Sie mein e-mail und die Anlage erhalten haben.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Friedbert Karger




Von: Büro Dr. Karger <info@drkarger.com>
Datum: Montag, 15. September 2008 08:44
An: xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.de
Betreff: Re: Rosenheim case
Einfügen: Rosenheim mit Abb 2.doc (4,90 MB)

Dear Mr. xxxxxxx,

Unfortunately I don’t have time right now to join your discussion.
< /o: p>
To answer your two questions:
The results of our investigations have been published in German in the „Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der Psychologie“, vol. XI / 1968, pp 113 – 131, and in a shorter version in the “Internal Communications” of the Max-Planck-Institute of Plasma Physics as well as in a technical journal. The „Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der Psychologie“ is a scientific journal, of which papers are peer reviewed before publishing.
We were in contact with illusionists before, during and after the investigations in Rosenheim and thus did take precautions against all possibilities of manipulation. The results of our experiments are therefore waterproof, both scientifically and as far as trickery20is concerned.

Your discussion obviously runs in circles because of resting on assumptions and not on facts. That is why I send you our publication of 1968 as an attachment. Currently, I don’t have time to translate it into English; you can maybe translate it or have someone translate it for your forum.

One more word about the phenomena:
The rotation of pictures, swinging of lamps, movements of file cabinets and explosions in the air were all interesting observations; however, they were not the elements underlying our conclusions. As it comes out of our report, we have concentrated our investigations on anomalous deflections of a voltage recorder that occurred repeatedly and were automatically registered. By that means, we were able to exclude the known physical causes with a 100% certainty, since we had monitored all external sources.
In the last 40 years, no Skeptic ever offered any useful non-paranormal explanation fitting our observations.
Most of Allan’s conclusions, published in the book „Falsche Geister, echte Schwindler“, are demonstrably wrong. The much discussed nylon string hanging by a lamp, for example, had been placed there on purpose by the director of the power-plant himself. Allan had just no clue about what the technicians and scientists were doing.

Should further questions (including skeptical ones) remain about the details of our investigations and results, I am ready to answer them under the conditions given in my homepage.

Sincerely,

Friedbert Karger

Translation of the first paragraph:

Dear Mr. xxxxxx,

I just had a look at the forum and realized that you did not receive my mail that I sent on monday. Maybe the size of the attachment is to blame.
Because of that, I am sending the mail a second time, this time without the attachment. I will try to send the attachment on its own. Please tell me when you received the mail and the attachment.

Sincerely,

Friedbert Karger

 

[Georg]

The second one is a pdf which I can not post as an attachment (way too large).

The summary is the only part translated in it:

SUMMARY
Physical Investigation of the Rosenheim Psychokinetic Phenomena.
Inexplicable phenomena in the office of a Rosenheim lawyer were first attributed to faults in the power supply. This hypothesis seemed to be confirmed by recorders which registered strong deflections. The officials of the power station, however, did not succeed in determining the cause. The authors made a control investigation. By means of a storage oscilloscope they examined systematically all possible physical causes inclusive fraudulent manipulation. The following conclusions were reached:
1. Although recorded with the facilities available to experimental physics, the events defied explanation with the known means available to theoretical physics;
2. the phenomena seemed to be the result of non-periodic, short-time forces;
3. they did not seem to involve electrodynamic effects but were «mechanically» induced;
4. not only were explosive events involved, but also complicated motions;
5. these movements seemed to be performed by intelligently controlled forces with a tendency to evade investigation.

Of course I could copy the whole text here, but I´m not sure if that´s appropriate (15 pages). Is one allowed to do that here? Since I told Dr. Karger before that I would publish his answers here, and he asked me to translate it for the forum or to ask someone else to do so in his mail no copyright issue would arise.
You want me to copy it here? Tell me so, and I will......

Or, who has a clue regarding technical explanations and would be able and willing to translate the pdf? It´s between 2,9 mb (that´s what my computer tells me) and 4,90 mb (as shown in Dr. Karger´s mail). If a "volunteer" sends me a valid email adress via pm, I will pass on the pdf. If I try to translate it, you have to wait for months, and the translation of the technical stuff would be far from accurate.