Derren Brown Seance - repeated tonight!

[tonyb]

None of those experiments seems at all convincing to me.

When a Hypnotist says 'Sleep' and the subject's head falls over they're either asleep or have just closed their eyes and are pretending. AFAIK the brain state of 'asleep' is easy to detect. I notice they never checked for this, instead it's all fairly subjective stuff about which part of the brain is active etc.

If you've ever read anything at all about hypnosis you'll have learned that it definitely is NOT sleep. So why are you perpetuating this myth! No wonder you don't believe in it if you don't even know the basics.

Once again, I think that the example here is a good one. Rather than debate whether a person really believes they're a chicken on stage or is just pretending - the focus here is on memory.

I am discounting the scenario where the subject was the person to throw the tambourine and when asked afterwards she genuinely does not remember she did.

There are some commonly used routines used by stage hypnotists where they the subject forgets their own name, or forgets the number 7 and therefore can't count their number of fingers properly. Presumably you would say that in all such cases the subject is just pretending to forget. While this might be the case for some people, I contend that for some they do genuinely forget these things due to the power of suggestion.

Have you never ever forgotten something that you really ought not to have, such as where you left something just five minutes ago? Have you ever experienced a "shock" state such as witnessing an accident, and found that your cognitive abilities, including memory, are adversely affected? If you can relate to these possibilities then is it really to much of a leap to accept the possibility that using certain psychological techniques one could be temporarily led to forget certain things?

 

[pjh]

Have you ever experienced a "shock" state such as witnessing an accident, and found that your cognitive abilities, including memory, are adversely affected? If you can relate to these possibilities then is it really to much of a leap to accept the possibility that using certain psychological techniques one could be temporarily led to forget certain things?

Of course I accept the possibility. Most anything (UFOs, God etc) is possible. However, I cannot think of an objective test that could prove it.

I ask again, can you think of an objective test that could prove to an independent 3rd party that hypnotism can make someone forget they threw a tambourine out of a cabinet.

If you can't even suggest a test to prove something that you believe, then your belief is on very shaky ground/

This appears to be bordering on proving a negative. A test if someone has remembered something is extremely easy, but proving that you have forgotten seems much more difficult.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The problem with this protocol is that it's putting the testing onus onto the hypnotist, which perpetuates the old myth about the hypnotist being the one with "special powers or abilities". This is one of the main reasons there is skepticism about hypnosis.

The reality is that the "power and ability" lies solely with the persons being hypnotised.

Isn't that just what my experiment is designed to find out?

It pretty much boils down to gaining rapport with the subjects,"selling" them the idea and then going through the ritual.

So if the hynotist succeeds where the control doesn't, it would mean either that his "ritual" is superior to the merely ritual movements of the control, or that he has some other method, superior to the control, of achieving greater rapport with the test subjects.

If the hypnotist performs the same as the control, then this shows that it's down to the subject being sold on the notion of being hypnotised, which in the proposed experiment is always done by the same person.

 

[Azrael 5]

Hang on pjh,initially you were claiming a stooge or a different person in the cabinet altogether...now you wish to disregard wether she threw the tambourine.There are many magicians,which work with suggestion(making people forget cards picked,their name etc) so whats the difference here?

 

[tonyb]

Of course I accept the possibility. Most anything (UFOs, God etc) is possible.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. My analogies were deliberately chosen as things that many people can relate to as real life experiences that have happened to them or someone they know, in order to demonstrate the fact the human memory is complex, context dependent, malleable and fallible.

However, I cannot think of an objective test that could prove it.

I ask again, can you think of an objective test that could prove to an independent 3rd party that hypnotism can make someone forget they threw a tambourine out of a cabinet.

If you can't even suggest a test to prove something that you believe, then your belief is on very shaky ground/

This appears to be bordering on proving a negative. A test if someone has remembered something is extremely easy, but proving that you have forgotten seems much more difficult.

I already answered in a previous post that I couldn't think of a test to absolutely prove whether somebody is telling the truch about forgetting something. It's a shame polygraphs aren't reliable

But it doesn't follow that the possibility of being "made" to forget is on shaky ground. Either people forget or they don't, regardless of whether you can test whether they are lying about it or not.

My opinion that it's possible is based on training, experience and anecdotes. I accept that isn't "scientific", but just because something isn't scientifically proven doesn't make it false any more than it doesn't make it true.

 

[tonyb]

Isn't that just what my experiment is designed to find out?So if the hynotist succeeds where the control doesn't, it would mean either that his "ritual" is superior to the merely ritual movements of the control, or that he has some other method, superior to the control, of achieving greater rapport with the test subjects.

If the hypnotist performs the same as the control, then this shows that it's down to the subject being sold on the notion of being hypnotised, which in the proposed experiment is always done by the same person.

Yes

So if the control "hypnotist" (i.e actor) gets the same result as the real hypnotist, then it means he gained the same level of rapport, etc. He might feasibly get better results than the real hypnotist if he gets better rapport and is a better "salesman"

The point is that it's what the subject believes that matters.

 

[walthrup48]

I've just found something in my vid collection that looks ... familiar (.avi, 36Mb, 3mins, DivX codec).

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Since Open Mind appears to be back from his break, I'd like to repeat my offer:

"But I'll make you a deal. If you provide a list of scientists who originally vouched for the Scole phenomena as being genuine evidence of the afterlife, I will write to them personally and ask them if they are still willing to sign up to that effect."

I would like to check if these people have been misreported, or have changed their minds since they first saw those performances. I would also like to know who these people are, so we can see if they have any authority on these matters.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

As usual I have to remind some posters above, I'm arguing the case for more open minded skepticism, I'm not really arguing the case for strong phenomena (I would though for weak PSI phenomena it exists IMO). Whether strong phenomena exists or not, I have no fixed conclusion either way, why should I have?

I’m amazed only 2 people challenged me on this Come on guys you are supposed to be skeptics! You have a Derren Brown claiming to have super hypnotic powers which you all happily believe because he is on the side of the skeptics. Yet I offer you a materialistic piece of trickery (with accomplice behind back curtain) which you might happily employ to discredit any psychic claim but reject because it is not on the side of the skeptics

Just imagine how irritating it would be to Derren, if someone started claiming all his hypnosis ability was simple fraudulent trickery? They started writing books debunking him with such unproven claims They might even make TV show showing false methods as warning to th public?

OK I’ve had my fun with that so lets assume he successfully hypnotized the girl off screen earlier to throw the tambourine. This is still not ‘unconscious fraud’! … Unconscious fraud implies the person did it herself uninformed ...... however hypnotizing a young girl to throw a tambourine requires suggesting to her to do so. So she might simply have felt obliged to comply and go with the show. So if he prior hypnotized her, how many rehearsals did they have earlier to test it would work? Even if Derren said something like ‘imagine a spirit manifesting through you is throwing the tambourine over the curtain’ …. That is suggestion and falls well short of proving unconscious fraud.

If Derren was really that effective, why did he not show the others showing much more unconscious fraud during infra red séance? Was the girl medium answering questions during séance also hypnotized to give these speicific answers, she was consciously aware of her answers? Were they both hypnotized to write London?

Do you see the problem? Derren tells us nothing, explains nothing, so he comes out of it with his magical persona intact…..because if he starts explaining whichever of several possible methods was employed (it makes no difference which) his 'unconscious fraud' definition collapses, his ability appears less special and the whole things becomes more clear that it doesn't really fit the reported séance senario..

His psychological tricks were also upon the viewer getting them to accept ‘unconscious fraud’ explanation that would not stand up if he supplied the missing information. If any such psychical research cases ha left out so much missing information so many people in here would debunk for that reason alone.


Really? I thought one of the scole reports researchers already made that challange and got no reply?

Sorry, Open Mind, I just noticed your last point.

If you tell me who this researcher is, and how to contact them, I could certainly explain how the 'lights' effect can be faked.

I remember a witness saying he wished he had held his hand out in front of his face to see if the "light" could pass through it. I could demonstrate that VERY effect.

What difference would that make, anyway?

 

[Open Mind]

"But I'll make you a deal. If you provide a list of scientists who originally vouched for the Scole phenomena as being genuine evidence of the afterlife, I will write to them personally and ask them if they are still willing to sign up to that effect."

I certainly do not wish to cause you such a time consuming task but since you requested information I will give you what I have easily to hand ..

The 3 main researchers (i.e. who attended far more of the seances) all spoke of it’s genuineness and their opinions are clearly documented ….

These are ….
Professor David Fontana – His opinion has not changed.
Professor Arthur Ellison (deceased)
Montague Keen (deceased)

I cannot give you list of all the other scientists who vouched for the phenomena….. what I can do is scan in some names of the other scientists who attended the Scole Experiments ....

Professor Bernard Carr
Professor Ivor Grattan-Guinness
Professor Robert Morris (deceased)
Professor Donald West
Professor Archie E. Roy
Dr Alan Gauld
Dr John Beloff
Dr Rupert Sheldrake
Ingrid Slack (Open University)
Dr Ernst Senkowski
Dr Hans Schaer
Dr Kurt Hoffman
Dr Russell Targ
Dr Marilyn Schlitz
Dr Bernard Haisch.

Others …..

…. ‘The investigations involved individuals from organisations such as NASA, the Institute of Noetic Sciences and the Scientific and Medical Network. The work was conducted in a number of international locations, including Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain (Ibiza), Switzerland and the USA. Here, other investigators assessed and reviewed the work, including Dr Ulf Israelsson, Dr Hans-Peter Stiider, Dr Theo Locher, Dr Andreas Liptay-Wagner and Dr Pal Kurthy.’

from the ‘The Scole Experiment’ book

I would like to check if these people have been misreported, or have changed their minds since they first saw those performances. I would also like to know who these people are, so we can see if they have any authority on these matters.

As long as you bear in mind those investigating are not ‘believers’ as such, they are scientists invited along. I’m not sure all would ‘sign’ anything as scientists are rightly cautious about making claims on phenomena or putting their reputations upon the line on phenomena they might not have witnessed to the same degree as the main researchers who attended far more seances.

With regard to magician James Webster

A closing comment on a different matter. James Webster's letter (Psychic World, June) emphasises yet again a point which Montague Keen and I have made in the Scole Report and many times elsewhere, and which James himself made as one of our invited platform speakers at the Study Day held on the Scole Investigation by the SPR, namely that he had no less than three full sittings with the Scole Group and was adamant that in his professional judgment as an Associate of the Inner Magic Circle, no trickery was evident, and that furthermore conjuring tricks could not account for the phenomena he observed. Some sceptics have persisted in their claims that no conjurors were present at Scole, and I hope James' letter will finally convince them how wrong they are.
Professor David Fontana
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/letters/fontana2.htm

Webster says ...

in The Scole Experiment Book ...
'The perennial question is: how does one convey such phenomena to convince the critics and sceptics? As a past member of the Magic Circle and a professional stage magician for a number of years, I have some understanding and experience of how trickery can be employed by the unscrupulous. It has kept me on my guard throughout over forty years of serious study and research.

With today's technology, it is easy for a stage magician to present, with the help and advice of electronics experts, a very convincing 'light show', complete with pseudo-seance effects, and the gullible will fall for it as they always have.

One such modus operand! might be the employment of long hollow strands of fibreglass with laser light projected through them. But this requires a previous set-up of props and gadgetry in the room and/or on the persons themselves, which would immediately fail the test conditions that are required to be met by the genuine medium and sitters

Hope that supplies some of the information you requested.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Webster is doing what he should know better to do -- looking for a complicated "gadget" setup to provide the lights.

This is not necessary. He just didn't know how simply the effect can be produced. Nothing "fancy" at all.

 

[Open Mind]

Sorry, Open Mind, I just noticed your last point.

If you tell me who this researcher is, and how to contact them, I could certainly explain how the 'lights' effect can be faked.

You will probably need a seance to contact him I think it was Montague Keen

I remember a witness saying he wished he had held his hand out in front of his face to see if the "light" could pass through it. I could demonstrate that VERY effect.

Reportedly, one light rested upon Professor Grattan-Guinness hands which he enfolded to satisfy himself the light had no physical link

What difference would that make, anyway?

I don't know

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Well, I didn't ask for a list of people who were in the audience. Just because someone watched a performance, it does not immediately follow that they endorse it.

I asked for the scientists who were "fooled" by the performance. Do you have statements to that effect from the people you name?

I will try to contact James Webster though. A quick Google for him reveals little more than references to Scole. You quote him as being a "former member of the magic circle." I wonder if they would still have a contact?

 

[dharlow]

I will try to contact James Webster though. A quick Google for him reveals little more than references to Scole. You quote him as being a "former member of the magic circle." I wonder if they would still have a contact?

On the Fortean Times board there was a lengthy discussion/argument on Scole in 2003. One of the posters wrote some questions to Webster, and he responded (scroll down):

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/v...storder=asc&highlight=scole+webster&start=225

His website is here, complete with email and biographical information:

http://www.jamesw.clara.net/

Watch out though...his bio states: "Debunkers and gullible fools he cannot suffer!"

 

[Traveller]

Open Mind refers to the participation of James Webster in the Scole seances and gives the impression that he was an open minded observer. Two quotes from his web site show that this is very far from the truth:

"Being born in what would be recognised as a "haunted house", paranormal phenomena was soon experienced."

"Scientific evidence has existed for over a century that we all survive physical death irrespective of our religious beliefs." This indeed was the subject of his book "Life is Forever".

I am not saying he was wrong about the Scole phenomena, nust that he started from a position of belief.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

OK, well I don't need to contact Webster then. He seems to be making himself quite clear:

As a stage magician/conjuror, I could not have convincingly replicated what I witnessed under the same strict conditions applied and I would challenge anyone else, professional magician or not, to do so with myself to witness, rather than they criticise from the sidelines.

I will not go so far as to say that it was beyond the scope of fraud ( I am a healthy sceptic not a gullible) as quite obviously there is the problem with manifestation in darkness and safe infra-red video filming would be a great asset in séances as I have always maintained. But I can say that the amount of light from the orbs (spirit/energy lights) and other phenomena did create a certain amount of energised light to counteract complete and total darkness. I would also add, if anyone in that group was able to perform the phenomena by fraud and trickery then they were wasting their time with such pranks and artistry with little reward. They could do themselves proud with fame and fortune in the World of Entertainment.

So, he could not replicate it personally, but he does not rule out the possibility that it could be a trick.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

More, from further down:

2. (a) How much of what he witnessed could have been faked and (b) how much was way beyond the abilities of even the most expert and well-equipped illusionist?

Answer to (a) All, part or nothing. (b) Not beyond the most expert, or myself for that matter!

... I maintain that under the conditions , regulations and purposes of these séances, nothing was or was required to be faked and I would not have attempted to replicate the "performance" under such terms.

So, again, he feels that the phenomena observed were within the abilities of a stage magician (and he includes himself in that), but that he would not have tried it himself.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

More, from further down:



So, again, he feels that the phenomena observed were within the abilities of a stage magician (and he includes himself in that), but that he would not have tried it himself.

It is really disingenuous of the Scole supporters to refer to people like Keen and Webster as though they were totally impartial observers.

So, what was NASA doing there? Or, was it a guy who cleans the toilets at some NASA institute?

How do I get in touch with Montague Keen, anyway? Oh, I know -- via Gary Schwartz.

 

[Open Mind]

Open Mind refers to the participation of James Webster in the Scole seances and gives the impression that he was an open minded observer. Two quotes from his web site show that this is very far from the truth:

I do not recall claiming James Webster is open minded I cannot possibly know that (until I become psychic ) .... But how do you know it's 'very far from the truth' unless you are already psychic?

For example, it could merely be his statement "Being born in what would be recognised as a "haunted house" ... got his curiousity in the paranormal and on becoming convinced at Scole he became a more of a believer, from that point. His book 'Life is Forever' is years after being at Scole. I have spoken to another who attended Scole, they also claimed it changed their life. This is also commonly reported in people who have a near death experiences.

Also we must never assume a paranormal opponent is more open minded than a paranormal proponent. This also reminds me of Professor Arthur Ellison (one of the 3 main researchers at Scole) who once conducted an 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.

 

[Dr Adequate]

This also reminds me of Professor Arthur Ellison (one of the 3 main researchers at Scole) who once conducted an 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.

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

Thanks.