Caronia fires – induction currents, UFOs, or poltergeist?

[Akhenaten]

I always like to tell people that since I was trained by the Gubmint, any information I can hand back is like giving folks a return on their tax dollars.

 

[Lusikka]

Skeptical facts

I have again begun to check the case of the Caronia fires, which has once again brought in my mind the nature of skeptical facts. They remain eternally unchanged because they are believed without criticism and nearly nobody tries to verify them. The same information will be circulated in many skeptical texts without updating or verification. Here some examples:

39 inhabitants of the village Canneto were evacuated for some months from their homes that were locked and the area was guarded by carabinieri and firemen. Massimo Polidoro, the leader of the Italian skeptics visited the village on Friday the 13th February 2004. In the Skeptical Inquirer, May-June, 2004 he writes:

We were told that the phenomena had stopped when the area was evacuated, and the only single episode after that was a very suspicious blackening of a young man's shoe sole, right after entering his own house alone to recover something.

Massimo realized that the phenomena could not be caused by natural forces and was sure pranksters did it all.

Reuters published a news article about the Canneto case,
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-4-2004_pg6_8
There was written:

“The fact that the phenomenon occurs only when there are people present makes it hard to believe that it is a natural, or even supernatural phenomenon,” said Massimo Polidoro.

On 16th April 2004 Randi ridiculed some partly false claims in the Reuters article
(http://www.randi.org/jr/041604our.html) and wrote:

"The fact that the phenomena occur only when there are people present, makes it hard to believe that it is a natural, or even supernatural, situation," Massimo said.

In reality the fires continued to blaze up in the empty houses and the firemen had to extinguish them. The phenomena continued still in April 2004 and still later in the autumn, but the inhabitants were allowed to come home already in June. Some firemen and carabinieri told they saw the fires blaze up without any known cause, so that it is rather risky to say everything was done by pranksters. Neither Massimo nor Randi corrected or updated their facts later.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Massimo realized that the phenomena could not be caused by natural forces and was sure pranksters did it all.

Reuters published a news article about the Canneto case,
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-4-2004_pg6_8
There was written:

In reality the fires continued to blaze up in the empty houses and the firemen had to extinguish them. The phenomena continued still in April 2004 and still later in the autumn, but the inhabitants were allowed to come home already in June. Some firemen and carabinieri told they saw the fires blaze up without any known cause, so that it is rather risky to say everything was done by pranksters. Neither Massimo nor Randi corrected or updated their facts later.

You have here posted two contradicting statements:

1) The occurrences stopped after the town was evacuated.

2) The occurrences continued after the town was evacuated.

One must be faulty. You have provided a reference for #1 (Reuters article). You have not provided any reference for #2.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let me add that pranks are the only plausible non-supernatural explanation, for the surge of events described.

Of course, any single event could be ascribed to accident, malfunction, etc., but such a massive surge of events must be either due to magic, of due to tinkering.

There are no electric phenomenon, natural or technological, that could explain them.

The reason is that to cause the events described, an EM emission of considerable energy and quite long wavelength (in the meter range) is required. Otherwise, objects this large could not be set on fire. However, not only is there no plausible source of such an emission, but, due to the wavelength, it can't be very precisely focused, which means that it would be easily detectable by many kinds of equipment, several of which would have been employed by the alleged horde of scientists and engineers trying to find an explanation.

Hans

 

[Lusikka]

You have here posted two contradicting statements:

1) The occurrences stopped after the town was evacuated.

2) The occurrences continued after the town was evacuated.

One must be faulty. You have provided a reference for #1 (Reuters article). You have not provided any reference for #2.

Hans

Would you please tell where I have posted #1 as my own opinion, based on evidence?

#2 is evident because of very many references, unfortunately mostly in Italian language, for example:

http://www.guidasicilia.it/ita/main/news/index.jsp?IDNews=10734

A Canneto di Caronia ritorna il fuoco!

17 Marzo 2004
Dopo un lungo periodo di calma, ritornano i misteriosi incendi nella piccola frazione messinese

My translation:

The fire returns to Canneto di Caronia!

17th March 2004
After a long peaceful period the mysterious fires return to the little village in Messina.
- - -

The houses were still empty at that time. There are very many details in the case and it requires a lot of work to make the total picture clear. The story must be gathered from articles of rather bad quality, with much false and irrelevant information. But there are also clear facts, that are interesting and important regarding our world view.

 

[Lusikka]

Let me add that pranks are the only plausible non-supernatural explanation, for the surge of events described.

I agree. But the facts ought not to be based on plausibility but on details and evidence.

Of course, any single event could be ascribed to accident, malfunction, etc., but such a massive surge of events must be either due to magic, of due to tinkering.

There are no electric phenomenon, natural or technological, that could explain them.

The reason is that to cause the events described, an EM emission of considerable energy and quite long wavelength (in the meter range) is required. Otherwise, objects this large could not be set on fire. However, not only is there no plausible source of such an emission, but, due to the wavelength, it can't be very precisely focused, which means that it would be easily detectable by many kinds of equipment, several of which would have been employed by the alleged horde of scientists and engineers trying to find an explanation.

Hans

I have the same opinion, thank you for the information. The electricians and physicists made relevant measurements and everything was normal, although there are some contradicting claims from laymen.

 

[Aepervius]

The houses were still empty at that time. There are very many details in the case and it requires a lot of work to make the total picture clear. The story must be gathered from articles of rather bad quality, with much false and irrelevant information. But there are also clear facts, that are interesting and important regarding our world view.

The village and house were *evacuated*, you do not know if they were *empty*, as a vandal could set a fire, then go the hell out. Just sayin'.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I agree. But the facts ought not to be based on plausibility but on details and evidence.

As long as we have no proof, plausibility is relevant.

Information gathered from numerous media sources is notoriously unreliable. If there were really a number of professionals investigating, they must have submitted a report.

That would be interesting to read.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Would you please tell where I have posted #1 as my own opinion, based on evidence?

I didn't say you had. I just observed that you posted a reference in favor of #1.

#2 is evident because of very many references, unfortunately mostly in Italian language, for example:

The fire returns to Canneto di Caronia!

17th March 2004
After a long peaceful period the mysterious fires return to the little village in Messina.

Not very conclusive.

The houses were still empty at that time. There are very many details in the case and it requires a lot of work to make the total picture clear. The story must be gathered from articles of rather bad quality, with much false and irrelevant information. But there are also clear facts, that are interesting and important regarding our world view.

Pretty easy to stage a fire in a town of empty houses.

Hans

 

[fls]

Any other explanations than tricks?

I have a question for you. What makes you think that poltergeists can start fires?

Linda

 

[richardm]

I have a question for you. What makes you think that poltergeists can start fires?

Linda

Come on Linda, spirits are notoriously flammable.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"In year 2004 in a village, Canneto di Caronia, Sicily, there were spontaneous fires that have practically remained unexplained."

What makes a fire "spontaneous"? Is there anything that separates a "spontaneous" fire from any other fire that we don't know how was started?

Also, the lack of an explanation adds no support to otherwise unsupported "explanations" such as UFOs or poltergeists. The lack of evidence for these "explanations" together with the fact that these explanations conflict with entire realms of science makes it absurd to accept them.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A couple of months ago Thieves after Scrap Copper. Broke into a Sub Station near where I live. They ripped out some gear causing overloads on houses connected through the substation. There were a whole bunch of electrical fires and appliances going pop.

I will look up the ref for it. There was a piece on the Local News and in the paper.

 

[Lusikka]

I have a question for you. What makes you think that poltergeists can start fires?

Linda

It is a well-known effect in poltergeist/haunting cases. Gauld and Cornell gathered a sample of 500 most reliable cases they could find and there were 53 cases (11%) with incendiary effects. Even one of my uncles told that he had seen spontaneously arising flames in two places.

Alan Gauld ja A.D.Cornell (1979): Poltergeists. Routledge & Kegan Paul 1979.

 

[Lusikka]

I didn't say you had. I just observed that you posted a reference in favor of #1.

Not very conclusive.

It seems you have some difficulties in understanding simple things you have read. You could not make a difference between different persons with different opinions. I said there are very many references and gave only one example because you asked refereces. Do you think it is the only existing relevant reference?

Pretty easy to stage a fire in a town of empty houses.

Hans

Sure, especially if other explanations are practically impossible.

 

[Lusikka]

What makes a fire "spontaneous"? Is there anything that separates a "spontaneous" fire from any other fire that we don't know how was started?

Perhaps the best case could be when you see the fire starting before your very eyes. Some such cases are reported in Canneto di Caronia.

Also, the lack of an explanation adds no support to otherwise unsupported "explanations" such as UFOs or poltergeists. The lack of evidence for these "explanations" together with the fact that these explanations conflict with entire realms of science makes it absurd to accept them.

You have a wrong starting point, observations are more fundamental and powerful than theories. Observations can demolish any theory but a theory cannot nullify well done observations. That is not absurd, it is a fact.

 

[fls]

It is a well-known effect in poltergeist/haunting cases. Gauld and Cornell gathered a sample of 500 most reliable cases they could find and there were 53 cases (11%) with incendiary effects. Even one of my uncles told that he had seen spontaneously arising flames in two places.

Alan Gauld ja A.D.Cornell (1979): Poltergeists. Routledge & Kegan Paul 1979.

How do you know that the inclusion of these cases was appropriate, i.e. how do you know that they weren't included mistakenly?

Linda

 

[Lusikka]

How do you know that the inclusion of these cases was appropriate, i.e. how do you know that they weren't included mistakenly?

Linda

Naturally it is impossible to know that. But the writers are in my opinion experienced and reasonable men. They discuss many possibilities of interpreting the cases. And they are not alone, there are many other similar reserchers. William Roll has done ivestigations of still active poltergeists, for example the Miami case. He made even som experimentation during the occurrences.

 

[fls]

Naturally it is impossible to know that. But the writers are in my opinion experienced and reasonable men. They discuss many possibilities of interpreting the cases. And they are not alone, there are many other similar reserchers. William Roll has done ivestigations of still active poltergeists, for example the Miami case. He made even som experimentation during the occurrences.

That doesn't really tell us anything, though. Experienced and reasonable men are still frequently wrong. One of my personal heroes, William Osler, would certainly be considered a most reasonable and experienced man. Yet almost everything he knew about medical therapy was wrong.

Linda

 

[Lusikka]

That doesn't really tell us anything, though. Experienced and reasonable men are still frequently wrong. One of my personal heroes, William Osler, would certainly be considered a most reasonable and experienced man. Yet almost everything he knew about medical therapy was wrong.

Linda

Thank you for your answers. It is delightful to discuss with you, the intelligent and moderate person as you are. But unfortunately you are here wrong in my opinion.

If somebody is experienced and reasonable so it means to me, that he/she cannot be much wrong. Experience and reason have learnt him/her not to believe in such things which are not really well founded. The person knows the limits of his/her knowledge and does not go much beyond them.

It is my principle never to take seriously information from only one source. I use to verify everything from many sources and see what also the opponents have to say. But it is foolish to discard any information only because you feel it is “implausible”. It is best only to leave the case open and wait. Perhaps someday the case can be verified or discarded on good grounds.

This method has learnt me something: real parapsycologists are much more reliable than skeptics.