Caronia fires – induction currents, UFOs, or poltergeist?

[MRC_Hans]

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

Incorrect. You just like their answers better.

Hans

 

[Aepervius]

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.

Experienced people TURNED OUT WRONG. Even from their expertise field.
Which is why one should not rely on "authorities" but on evidence. And I don't know anything about those 500 cases, but something tells me that the fact that the book is from 79 and 30 years later we are still not talking poltergeist in science classes is telling.

I betcha if one look at those 500 cases, a TRUE analysis would at best only say "evidence insufficient to come to a conclusion", whereas your paranormal guy/gale will say "it is spirit !" or "it is ESP: pyrokinesie !" for inconclusive evidence.

One things I learned over 30 last years , is that paranormal guy are totaly and utterly unreliable and baised, and will interpret INCONCLUSIVE evidence as being a proof of their pet theory. it seems that there is some sort of fallacy among parapsychologist that if science cannot show conclusively a normal explanation, then auto-magically it means their pet theory is proved.

That does not work that way.

 

[fls]

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.

Well, it would be nice if that were true, but I'm afraid that we already know this is not the case. For example, experienced and reasonable people believe in and practice Homeopathy, yet we already know that all of it is wrong.

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.

But you are talking about two different things. I don't think anyone is suggesting that information be discarded. What is suggested is that a made-up explanation be discarded. Whether or not you are satisfied with which sorts of explanations have been ruled-out (and I have to say that I can't really have much confidence in the judgement of someone who tries to claim that a locked-up house is sufficient to make it impossible for anyone to get into the house ), probability theory leads to the discovery that the ruling-out of one explanation does not alter the plausibility of a made-up explanation. We could all agree that any skeptical investigations were dead wrong and the believer investigations were exquisitely accurate, and we would still be unable to say anything about the probability that a poltergeist was responsible.

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

As MRC_Hans has pointed out, your criteria simply seems to be whether or not someone says what you want to hear. For example, using the criteria which scientific investigation has found to lead to reliable and valid conclusions, parapsychologists perform in a way that is unreliable.

Linda

 

[Lusikka]

Incorrect. You just like their answers better.

Hans

Has it never occurred in your mind that it also is possible to check and verify claims? And accept all correct results - if you then like them or not.

 

[Andy_Ross]

SO how do you check and verify claims of Poltergeists and Ghosties before you accept them?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Has it never occurred in your mind that it also is possible to check and verify claims? And accept all correct results - if you then like them or not.

It has. That is what we skeptics do all the time.

So how do you check and verify the claims you are making here?

Hans

 

[Olowkow]

The Skeptical Inquirer or Joe Nickell's site are good places to start if someone really wants to get a feel for how to approach these paranormal claims.

I enjoy Joe's approach, as he does not consider himself a debunker as such, but he wants to discover what is going on, much like a troubleshooter in any other field.
​

 

[Lusikka]

Well, it would be nice if that were true, but I'm afraid that we already know this is not the case. For example, experienced and reasonable people believe in and practice Homeopathy, yet we already know that all of it is wrong.

The above could be interpreted so that you think homeopaths and perhaps astrologers and so on are reasonable people. I myself don’t think so at all, because they believe in such things which have no scientific and reasonable grounds.

But you are talking about two different things. I don't think anyone is suggesting that information be discarded. What is suggested is that a made-up explanation be discarded. Whether or not you are satisfied with which sorts of explanations have been ruled-out (and I have to say that I can't really have much confidence in the judgement of someone who tries to claim that a locked-up house is sufficient to make it impossible for anyone to get into the house ), probability theory leads to the discovery that the ruling-out of one explanation does not alter the plausibility of a made-up explanation. We could all agree that any skeptical investigations were dead wrong and the believer investigations were exquisitely accurate, and we would still be unable to say anything about the probability that a poltergeist was responsible.

You discarded or omitted the information I gave, that the firemen and carabinieri were also guarding all the time. And I have never said that it was impossible to get into the houses, but I think so many fires without noticing the pranksters and without anybody caught are very improbable. Otherwise you are right.

As MRC_Hans has pointed out, your criteria simply seems to be whether or not someone says what you want to hear. For example, using the criteria which scientific investigation has found to lead to reliable and valid conclusions, parapsychologists perform in a way that is unreliable.

Linda

I hope you could give some examples of parapsychologists performing in a scientifically unreliable way. To the unreliability of skeptics I plan to return soon.

 

[fls]

The above could be interpreted so that you think homeopaths and perhaps astrologers and so on are reasonable people. I myself don’t think so at all, because they believe in such things which have no scientific and reasonable grounds.

But that just shows that you are making this judgment on the basis of your biases. The same criticism would apply to your trust that William Roll is a reasonable person.

I hope you could give some examples of parapsychologists performing in a scientifically unreliable way. To the unreliability of skeptics I plan to return soon.

For a start, non-blinded judgments. Many experiments in remote viewing involved judgements made by those who were aware of which outcome would support their hypothesis and which wouldn't.

Linda

 

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Lusikka
Has it never occurred in your mind that it also is possible to check and verify claims? And accept all correct results - if you then like them or not.

It has. That is what we skeptics do all the time.

Yes, you certainly believe so, but you don’t notice how biased your belief is. You are right in the sense that skeptics always try to debunk every case of possible evidence of psi-phenomena. Any possible, even imaginary explanations will do for that. But the debunking is too often of bad quality, without necessary details and especially omitting details of the case that would be difficult to explain.

The checking does not apply to the skeptical side. All details the skeptics render are believed and they will remain unchecked.

As an example we can take the case of Ted Serios, presented by the writer Michael Prescott, a former skeptic as he has said. Prescott is not a scientist, which must be taken in account all the time, but I think it is not a too big deficiency here. He has written about the Serios case here:
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/08/lets_get_serios.html

Prescott has a list of details which some skeptical writers have forgotten in their debunking of Serios. He has also gathered some expressions which Randi has used in his book “Flim Flam!” concerning parapsychology and the Serios case. It is noteworthy that I have seen only praising of Randi’s wit by skeptics and even scientists. In my opinion science ought not to be defended using such a style of writing.

I am very grateful to Randi for his excellent and important debunking of New Age, because I don’t like New Age at all. But I don’t appreciate his debunking of parapsychology.

The normal reaction of skeptics to Prescott’s article would be that it is sheer BS altogether, without any details given. I would be glad to get some details of the debunking this time.

So how do you check and verify the claims you are making here?

Hans

It is very simple: searching as many references and details as possible and forming a total picture from the controversial material. Did you not know that? I have already done so rather much but the work still continues. And I don’t forget any details.

 

[Lusikka]

But that just shows that you are making this judgment on the basis of your biases. The same criticism would apply to your trust that William Roll is a reasonable person.

You are rigt. But what new light this brings in our discussion? I don't say that Roll is a perfect researcher, but his claims must be set in their context. I believe that he is not a pathological liar, and the details he tells are clear and simple. Can you give me some names of persons who are fully objective? And the homeopaths, do you think they are reasonable?

For a start, non-blinded judgments. Many experiments in remote viewing involved judgements made by those who were aware of which outcome would support their hypothesis and which wouldn't.

Linda

Thank you. Would you please still give your references and names of the articles? It is rather laborious to evaluate your claims on this level of generality.

 

[Jocce]

Would you please answer and tell in which of the following points information is reliable in the Canneto case:
<snip>

That would be impossible to tell when u don't give a source for any of the "evidence". In general. Got any sources to back some of it up, (se below):

1. There have been fires
Yeah, fires happen.

2. There have been firemen present
Of course. That's common if there's a fire.

3. Electrical appliances being damaged from overheating inside the machines
yeah, so?

4. Electrical cables being burnt
Yes, that happens.

5. About a hundred experts present trying to find causes for the (possible?) damage
Oh really? Got a source for that?

6. Fires starting in locked houses without anybody present inside
Happens every day.

7. A policeman has seen a cable coil lying on the floor to catch fire by itself, not connected in electrical network
Source please?

8. Water pipes seen to become glowing and start a fire
Source please.

9. 39 persons have been evacuated in February-August
And?

10. Cellular phones ringing until the battery has got empty, with nobody calling
Source?

11. Cellular phones catching fire
Yeah so? Source?

12. Water pipes beginning to leak, inundating some rooms
Oh no.seriously??!?! Leaking water pipes? Who would have expected that to happen.

13. Sofas catching fire
Naw, really? Must never have happened before.

14. Chairs catching fire
Seriously? This sounds bad...

 

[MRC_Hans]

You discarded or omitted the information I gave, that the firemen and carabinieri were also guarding all the time. And I have never said that it was impossible to get into the houses, but I think so many fires without noticing the pranksters and without anybody caught are very improbable. Otherwise you are right.

I'm sorry to point this out, but this happened in Sicily. Quite a bit out in the sticks, it seems. To be honest, exactly how carefully do you think that village was guarded? Especially after several weeks (I notice fires only recurred after some weeks of evacuation.

Also, a small village where? Out in the mountains?? It would take an army to ensure that no locals could sneak back in.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, you certainly believe so, but you don’t notice how biased your belief is. You are right in the sense that skeptics always try to debunk every case of possible evidence of psi-phenomena. Any possible, even imaginary explanations will do for that. But the debunking is too often of bad quality, without necessary details and especially omitting details of the case that would be difficult to explain.

The checking does not apply to the skeptical side. All details the skeptics render are believed and they will remain unchecked.

Well, you are missing one point: YOU are presenting the claim, so you have the burden of evidence. Debunkers only need to present a plausible mundane explanation, we don't have to prove our explanation is correct.

This may feel a little unfair, but them's the rules.

It is very simple: searching as many references and details as possible and forming a total picture from the controversial material. Did you not know that? I have already done so rather much but the work still continues. And I don’t forget any details.

And you mentioned that many of the references were unreliable. How doe you decide which to rely on? Bias?

Hans

 

[Olowkow]

Thanks Lusikka, this looks fun. I found these two links, not sure why someone has yet to post them as they come up near the top of a Google search:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/cann-tt.htm

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/canneto4.htm

And Wiki notes this link from the same source:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/cann-for.htm


I'll see what I can find out about datasync.

I've reread some of this, plus the posts that I made (#4, 5). Much of it is a real hoot. How can anyone take it seriously?

By the way, if the power cord to the lamp WAS plugged in it probably wouldn't have caught fire. The motors would have even if plugged in because the field coils are isolated from ground through the switch. I think it is magnetic flux rather than electromagnetic, these are not hot dogs left in the microwave oven too long. Also, the mapping should be carried out to sea to see if the village is just the tip of the 'iceberg'.
09 Apr 2004 - Robin van Spaandonk - Canneto di Caronia
Do you happen to know if anyone has thought to measure x-rays or gamma-rays? (Such radiation would among other things cause water to separate into hydrogen and oxygen resulting in fires in water pipes).

I'm having entirely too much fun.

 

[fls]

Thank you. Would you please still give your references and names of the articles? It is rather laborious to evaluate your claims on this level of generality.

This will be off-topic, so if you want to talk about this, maybe start a new thread and I can spend some time looking for links. Some studies I am thinking of are the ganzfeld studies with single targets (i.e. the same target that was handled by the sender is made available to the judge), Susan Blackmore's description of the goings on in Sargent's lab (it won't take me long to find that as I saw it at her website a few months ago), and Targ and Puthoff's remote viewing studies in which the targets were given to the judges in order and various cues were left in the transcripts as to order (including a date, in at least one instance).

Linda

 

[Lusikka]

This will be off-topic, so if you want to talk about this, maybe start a new thread and I can spend some time looking for links. Some studies I am thinking of are the ganzfeld studies with single targets (i.e. the same target that was handled by the sender is made available to the judge), Susan Blackmore's description of the goings on in Sargent's lab (it won't take me long to find that as I saw it at her website a few months ago), and Targ and Puthoff's remote viewing studies in which the targets were given to the judges in order and various cues were left in the transcripts as to order (including a date, in at least one instance).

Linda

Thank you, this is really off-topic. I think I have also read that article by Blackmore, but could not find it now. I now understand that you are sincere and you don't say anything without good background knowledge.

I have never liked the topic of remote viewing because there are so many exaggerated claims regarding the skills of the viewers. Therefore I don't have enough knowlegde of the topic and I am not willing to use my time to review it now. I am pleased with your answer and would like to leave that topic now. And naturally there has also been sloppy research in parapsychology, but the whole discipline ought not to be condemned as nonsense.

 

[Lusikka]

I've reread some of this, plus the posts that I made (#4, 5). Much of it is a real hoot. How can anyone take it seriously?


I'm having entirely too much fun.

Certainly, there is a lot of material about Canneto di Caronia fires in the web and overwhelming majority is clearly rubbish. That shows how far from the real world many people have drifted and how little knowledge they have in physics. But in my opinion it is however possible to get a realistic idea what really has happened there.

The best references are naturally in Italian language, which I am able to read with some trouble. I have copied nearly 200 pages in my files, choosing only the best references.

I repeat the links to Physics Forums which I gave in my OP. There is rather much matter-of-fact discussion by experts in physics:

Town Battles 'Demonic' Mystery Blazes
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive...p/t-14304.html

Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back Into The Fridge
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-16494.html

 

[Olowkow]

Certainly, there is a lot of material about Canneto di Caronia fires in the web and overwhelming majority is clearly rubbish. That shows how far from the real world many people have drifted and how little knowledge they have in physics. But in my opinion it is however possible to get a realistic idea what really has happened there.

The best references are naturally in Italian language, which I am able to read with some trouble. I have copied nearly 200 pages in my files, choosing only the best references.

I repeat the links to Physics Forums which I gave in my OP. There is rather much matter-of-fact discussion by experts in physics:

Town Battles 'Demonic' Mystery Blazes
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive...p/t-14304.html

Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back Into The Fridge
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-16494.html

Which posters do you consider to be "experts" in physics? I honestly can't find any who strike me as having any real expertise in electronics or physics. Even if they were experts, why would they be privy to any more accurate information than anyone else who was not there?
This whole case is one of a simple series of coincidences which I think became overblown by poor folks who were afraid of demons and other religious mythical distorted thinking. Once you have a few phenomena which no one can explain...because of insufficient knowledge, some people will come up with their own stories to gain part of the attention being lavished on their neighbors.

You have, of course, read this:

Quote:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive...p/t-16494.html
Hi Lester,
Thanks for today's update on the fearful residents of Canneto di Caronia. I wonder if anyone has alerted you to the article in the current issue of "Skeptical Inquirer" on this subject. (Skeptical Inquirer, "The Magazine of Science and Reason," vol 28 no 3, May/June 2004, "Satan in a Sicilian Fridge," p. 26; www.csicop.org). The Canneto di Caronia story was investigated by Massimo Polidoro (www.massimopolidoro.com), a debunker of paranormal claims. He reported the following among his findings:
The area of activity was not an entire town, but a few houses on a private road whose inhabitants are all related.
The only observable result of the incident was some small fires that appeared to have their source in some charred electrical wires. (No appliance misbehaviors were found.) All the wires were easily reachable; none were inside walls or beyond arm's length. The wires had been charred from the outside, not from overheating of the copper within. A telephone repairman noticed that he could provide exact duplicates by heating wires with a cigarette lighter.
When the electric utility cut off power, reports of fires continued; when the inhabitants were evacuated, the fires stopped.
An exorcist who volunteered to visit the town "was openly invited to stay home" by townspeople "fed up" with media mania.
Could it be that the story was exaggerated? Well, Polidoro did observe one reporter who insisted that his interviewee "scream and curse on camera in order to make her interview 'more effective.'" Possibly the Danish crew who were there "to film the devil" didn't help.
As your report stated, bodies as diverse as the National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology failed to offer a plausible reason for the fires. Indeed, the volcano people did not find a single volcano; however, the president of the organization was quoted as saying, "If you think about it, nothing extraordinary has happened since the area has been evacuated."
Hope you find this interesting. All the best,
Ross Carter

As for wires with no power connected bursting into flames before the eyes of the firemen...didn't happen. A tale told by idiots, signifying nothing. I would need "extraordinary evidence" of that one. We've had better idiots than that right here on JREF.

 

[Agatha]

10. Cellular phones ringing until the battery has got empty, with nobody calling

How is it known that nobody was calling, if the phone wasn't answered?