Derren Brown Seance - repeated tonight!

[TheBoyPaj]

I do not recall claiming James Webster is open minded

Well, why did you name him as a good witness?

Perhaps you could dispense with the games and actually name the scientists who you previously indicated were "fooled" by the Scole performances? Remember, we're not just after people who attended. We just want the people who claimed that what they saw was paranormal.

 

[Open Mind]

This sounds interesting, OM... could I have some more details please?

Thanks.

Arthur Ellison conducted an experiment in which he levitated a bowl of flowers with a hidden electromagnet. Yet five of six witnesses refused to admit the evidence of their eyes (described in Inglis, 1986, pp. 266–267). Steiner (1986) described how he fooled many skeptics at a CSICOP conference by claiming not that he was psychic but that he could detect extremely subtle cues. Also, Hyman (1964) has described how magicians can misperceive tricks because of their expectations.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/DeceptionBySubjects.html

Also

Professor Arthur Ellison - emeritus professor of electrical engineering & a practising psychiatrist - conducted perceptions experiments during his lectures

Once he pre-arranged for an ordinary-looking bowl of flowers on the table in front of him to be raised electro-magnetically so it floated upwards, hovered a while, then descended

The Professor carried on talking, ignoring the event but watching the audience for any reaction

Not until the end of question time did a member timidly ask "Did anyone notice something strange happen to that bowl of flowers during the talk?"

Suddenly reassured, others said they'd seen "a wobble" or even "lifting by spirit hands"

They were mocked by skeptics in the audience who said "Nothing happened - we would have seen it"


But it did
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/magic2.html

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj

Well, why did you name him as a good witness?

I think he is a good witness, he was there! Being a magician is a bonus .... what sort of witness are you looking for? A skeptic who saw less, had no explanation or conjuring knowledge but is sure some undefined form of trickery was involved? Webster is a good witness as long as you bear in mind there are no perfect witnesses.

. In fact, as Hyman has written: “Even if one assembles all the world’s magicians and scientists and puts them to the task of designing a fraud-proof experiment, it cannot be done” (1981, p. 39). Critics have frequently called for magicians to be involved in psi experiments. However, a number of the greatest magicians in history have endorsed particular research, but the critics seemingly found it no more acceptable
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/DeceptionBySubjects.html

It seem a good witness to some skeptics is only one who finds no paranormal?

Perhaps you could dispense with the games and actually name the scientists who you previously indicated were "fooled" by the Scole performances?

I don't know if they were 'fooled' or not. I'm not fit to have a fixed opinion since I wasn't at Scole. I used 'fooled' in the sense Derren Brown would have to fool scientists to immitate or replicate what happened at Scole, I didn't mean the Scole scientists were necessarily fooled.

Rather than me put imperfect words in the mouths of scientists, I suggest you contact Professor David Fontana, he is very likely to know those who will stand by the claim it was genuine. He was probably there when other scientists were present .......

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I think he is a good witness, he was there! Being a magician is a bonus .... what sort of witness are you looking for?

Ooh, I dunno. Maybe someone open-minded? Otherwise the person will have already made up their mind and any evidence they see (even outright trickery) would not make any difference to their opinion. I think we can discount Websters testimony, if you don't think he is capable of that.

I don't know if they were 'fooled' or not. I'm not fit to have a fixed opinion since I wasn't at Scole. I used 'fooled' in the sense Derren Brown would have to fool scientists to immitate or replicate what happened at Scole, I didn't mean the Scole scientists were necessarily fooled.

But if no scientists at Scole were fooled, then Brown would not have to achieve that to duplicate the effects, would he?

You know, this would have been a lot quicker if you had admitted your uncertainty from the start.

 

[Open Mind]

But if no scientists at Scole were fooled, then Brown would not have to achieve that to duplicate the effects, would he?

Professor David Fontana - ‘for reason we make clear in the Scole Report the first of these explanations, fraud, can be fully and emphatically dismissed’

The late Professor Arthur Ellison - ‘the group [Scole séance members] on ‘this side’ were honest and genuine’

The late Montague Keen - ‘No doubt there may be people who think all or some of the evidence is fraudulent. If so, they have yet to publish or provide the authors of the Report with a shred of hard evidence to support that view. They have had more than a year (and every opportunity and incentive) to do so’

Dr Hans Schaer - ‘I can therefore guarantee the results of the Scole group in every respect are 100% genuine’

Dr Ernst Senkowski - ‘left me convinced of the genuineness of the phenomena’

Dr Kurt Hoffman ‘…I inspected the cellar thoroughly …’ and goes on to describe phenomena

Peirs Eggett ‘…ought to be sufficient to convince any thinking person’

I think if you search enough you will find comments also from Professor Ivor Grattan-Guinness, Dr Rupert Sheldrake, Ingrid Slack, Professor A Roy, William Schnittger, etc. …….. and others

Not all I listed a few posts ago will necessarily be equally impressed (I don’t know).

You know, this would have been a lot quicker if you had admitted your uncertainty from the start.

The uncertainty is my own, I wasn’t at Scole, why should I have certainty? Neither am I going to dismiss what I never witnessed.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

This is the David Fontana who uses personal anecdotes in a paper called "Does Mind Survive Physical Death?" to suppossedly show he has not been "hot read" by Doris Smith, and then goes on to show how easily he gives away details about himself that a psychic could use:

The most recent example is a supposed communication from my mother, who died just over a year ago, and who among other things referred during a sitting with the medium Doris Smith to an unusual silver cigarette case in my possession, which she then accurately described. The cigarette case, which is a family heirloom, was given to me by my mother some years previously, and as a non-smoker I put it in a safe place and promptly forgot about it. At no point did it occur to me that my mother, if she communicated, would make reference to it, and few things were further from my mind during the sitting. Interest in this incident is heightened by the fact that the medium not only had no knowledge of the existence of the cigarette case, but knows me to be a non-smoker and therefore would have been unlikely to associate me consciously with anything connected with cigarettes.

Then he gives out other personal details that a medium could use to hot read:

Let me say for example that I am a member of the sample in the experiment and that we are given statements from a supposed communicator through the medium that he limped badly in life, that he worked for the Land Registry, that he was an accomplished draughtsman, that his office was in London, and that he supported Arsenal Football Club. All theses statements are applicable to my father, who died some years ago, so I would claim them as intended for me.

According to Fontana:

That mediums communicate information gained paranormally seems beyond reasonable doubt.