Caronia fires – induction currents, UFOs, or poltergeist?

[Lusikka]

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.

Thank you for this confession. I interpret it so, that there is no need for debunkers to bind their claims in the observations of the cases. This has been evident in real life, but now you tell it is OK also in principle. Nobody objected, so here are the Rules of the Game here. By the way, I have no claims or obligation to “prove” anything, but I hope I have right to tell my opinion here.

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

I evaluate the articles by comparing their explanations with the details of the cases and the scientific knowledge that is generally known and understood by me. But observations cannot be explained away by only theoretical grounds.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Thank you for this confession. I interpret it so, that there is no need for debunkers to bind their claims in the observations of the cases. This has been evident in real life, but now you tell it is OK also in principle. Nobody objected, so here are the Rules of the Game here.

You are misrepresenting me. I frankly think deliberately so. The 'rules of the game' is that the onus of proof is on the claimant. It is a rule that applies to any academic discussion.

By the way, I have no claims or obligation to “prove” anything, but I hope I have right to tell my opinion here.

Sure. However, if you are only voicing an opinion, what is wrong with us doing the same?

I evaluate the articles by comparing their explanations with the details of the cases and the scientific knowledge that is generally known and understood by me. But observations cannot be explained away by only theoretical grounds.

Since we are talking about past events, we could not investigate them even if we would, so theory is all we are left with.

But why do you feel that we are obliged to investigate your opinions?

Hans

 

[Hellbound]

Thank you for this confession. I interpret it so, that there is no need for debunkers to bind their claims in the observations of the cases. This has been evident in real life, but now you tell it is OK also in principle. Nobody objected, so here are the Rules of the Game here. By the way, I have no claims or obligation to “prove” anything, but I hope I have right to tell my opinion here.

You're misunderstanding what he's saying...and I can't help but wonder if it's deliberate on your part.

His pooint is, that if you are trying to posit some new, unproven pehnomena as a cause (such as amazing specific lightning-power-level EMF fields, or poltergeists, or alien activity, or whatever), then you have to provide evidence to support that conclusion and rule out other answers that rely on known physics.

He's simply stating the effect of applying Occam's Razor to the situation.

Before positing a new entity to explain this, you have to rule out all known factors. Because of this, if any known cause is even plausible (not proven), then the inclusion of new, unknown causes is unsupportable.

In other words, if you want to claim it was poltergeists, then you have to prove that. If it can be explained by both Poltergeists and someone sneaking into the town, then Occam's Razor says we go with the sneaky people unless you can provide evidence for something new. You have to rule out all the mundane explanations.

 

[Lusikka]

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?

They were on the Physicist’s Forum, that is enough for me, and as far as I have understood, their posts were often reasonable thinking.

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.

How can you be so certain? Perhaps you have studied the occurrences very much and can read Italian language, which is much needed?

You have, of course, read this:
[part of the Massimo Polidoro article repeated and commented]

The Polidoro article in the Skeptical Inquirer is outdated, omits many types of observations and contains wrong information. How can skeptics have any progress without checking the facts, updating the articles and making necessary corrections?

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.

On what grounds can you be so certain? Somebody caught lying?

 

[MRC_Hans]

They were on the Physicist’s Forum, that is enough for me, and as far as I have understood, their posts were often reasonable thinking.

Well something like the claim that X-rays and gamma rays would split water into oxygen and hydrogen and cause tater pipes to burst into flame, is obviously pure sleculation from someone who hasn't the slightest idea what he is talking about.

Also the idea to "get cheap instruments and let the locals play with them" is utterly bizarre.

After just these items, NOTHING that person writes can be taken seriosuly.

How can you be so certain? Perhaps you have studied the occurrences very much and can read Italian language, which is much needed?

Because what we can read is silliness. Why don't you present the sources you find credible?

The Polidoro article in the Skeptical Inquirer is outdated, omits many types of observations and contains wrong information. How can skeptics have any progress without checking the facts, updating the articles and making necessary corrections?

Where ARE the facts? On what grounds do we consider some sources reliable and others not?

Actually, there was some interesting news: Volcanic activity. Methane leaking from the ground might provide some incidences forming the core of truth in this story.

Hans

 

[Olowkow]

On what grounds can you be so certain? Somebody caught lying?

Mainly, extensive electronic repair and design experience, common sense, street smarts, dealings with delusional people, BS detector, experience with mistaken or clueless customers who feel their problems are unique and mysterious, etc. And, yes, my Italian is not too bad, though my French and Spanish are much better.

Witnesses are generally not lying but just mistaken when proven to be wrong. A house fire can flare up after the firemen believe it is out. Perhaps a wire was draped over a piece of wood that was not fully extinguished. This is why they overkill with water on smoldering sections.

My turn. On what grounds can you be so certain that a wire burst into flames merely by reading some random claim by someone you never met? Seriously, do you have some personal stake in believing this stuff? You are coming across as someone who believes anything that is in print.

May I ask why you have a bent spoon in your avatar?

I am open to your suggestions for a theory on exploding wires.

ETA: You did not tell me which posters on the Physics forum were believable. You realize that just because the forum is called "Physics" does not mean it is a den of experts, I hope.

 

[Lucian]

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

Caller ID said "Nobody"? Ooh, maybe Odysseus is responsible!

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Okay I read the accounts and the reports about this saga. I believe what's causing it is quantum particles created by a psychic enigma, that is surrounding the son, otherwise know as a poltergeist.

 

[catsmate]

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?

I've seen this happen, a work colleage of mine some years ago managed to screw up his phone with a dodgy car charger; it started ringing without a cellular connection (even in a shielded room). When answered it would stop ringing and there'd be no caller; this cycle would repeat ad infinitum.
Eventually as soon as he "hung up" on the non-existant called the phone would ring immediately. He could still make and receive calls, sort of........

 

[Olowkow]

@Lusikka:
Scusi, ma capisco un po italiano da molti anni fa, non parlo bene italiano, pero mi dispiace molto che voi ve ne andate.

I am trying to be very fair here, and I really do not wish to offend, but you must understand that a claim of something paranormal is a very significant thing, and must be defended with robust data. Particularly on a skeptic's forum.

 

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Lusikka
On what grounds can you be so certain? Somebody caught lying?

Mainly, extensive electronic repair and design experience, common sense, street smarts, dealings with delusional people, BS detector, experience with mistaken or clueless customers who feel their problems are unique and mysterious, etc. And, yes, my Italian is not too bad, though my French and Spanish are much better.

Fine, you have an ideal background for understanding of many cases. I hope you have used your Italian knowledge to use the Italian references, which are more numerous and often more detailed than the articles in English.

Witnesses are generally not lying but just mistaken when proven to be wrong. A house fire can flare up after the firemen believe it is out. Perhaps a wire was draped over a piece of wood that was not fully extinguished. This is why they overkill with water on smoldering sections.

I have done rather much field work in search of psi-phenomena and it is my experience that lying is rather rare. But in the Canneto case you seem to forget other objects catching fire: the TV-sets, radios, air-conditioners, furniture, fuse boxes, microwave ovens, door phones, wall sockets and so on. So many incidents and so much damage happening that the houses were evacuated. Well, the inhabitants let their things and houses to be burned while they were still at home?

My turn. On what grounds can you be so certain that a wire burst into flames merely by reading some random claim by someone you never met? Seriously, do you have some personal stake in believing this stuff? You are coming across as someone who believes anything that is in print.

By reading some random claim? As far as I know, I don’t “believe” those occurrences. Therefore I am still working with the case. And it is very interesting in many aspects.

May I ask why you have a bent spoon in your avatar?

My avatar is a strong steel soup spoon bent by a 9-year old boy in 1974. He held the bowl of the spoon between thumb and index finger of the left hand and rubbed lightly the bend area between thumb and index finger of the right hand. The bending was accomplished in about ten minutes, holding the spoon all the time above the surface of the table, five adults standing around the sitting boy. All of us saw clearly the gradual change of the angle of the bend to happen. "Lusikka" is Finnish and means spoon. By the way, why do skeptics as a rule remember only Geller and forget the metal-bending children?

ETA: You did not tell me which posters on the Physics forum were believable. You realize that just because the forum is called "Physics" does not mean it is a den of experts, I hope.

This kind of clinging to insignificant things, like trying to make himself funny, is one of the most often used strategies to divert the discussion away from essentials.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There were some obvious clues left.

 

[Olowkow]

This kind of clinging to insignificant things, like trying to make himself funny, is one of the most often used strategies to divert the discussion away from essentials.

Thanks for answering my questions. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the above, but I was very curious to know which ones you felt were knowledgeable. What is funny, is someone claiming the stuff they were claiming.

Well, from experience I am aware that there is no point in arguing what there is no evidence of. You seem to be content in believing all of this.

You realize I trust, that if you ever run across another spoon bending kid, you and he could make a quick $1,000,000 US by doing the MDC at JREF.

The reason Geller is so infamous for the spoon trick, is that he claimed he was doing it by using his mind, betrayed some people who trusted him, and was ultimately humiliated when it was shown that he was a liar.