Montague Keen

[LTC8K6]

Now if Steve will kindly forward that to Mr. Keen on your behalf....

 

[SteveGrenard]

In response to a request above regarding 20 items Montague Keen asked Randi to explain, I am forwarding that list of items herewith along with the preface to that challenge:



The challenge to Mr. Randi and friends

I am not applying for Mr. Randi's $million but only for some evidence that his challenge is genuine. Before I reproduce my comments on the television programme , I present Mr. Randi, and any of his fellow-skeptics, with a list of some of the classical cases of paranormality with most or all of which Mr. Randi will be familiar. I know he will be because he has been studying the subject for half a century, he tells us. And just as I would not pretend to authority and expertise in conjuring unless I could perform some party tricks to bedazzle a troop of intelligent ten year olds, or apply for an assistant professorship in physics while admitting I had never heard of Boyle's Law or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, nor seek admission to the Bar without first having some familiarity with the leading cases, so I would not imply that Mr. Randi is ignorant of these cases, many of which have long awaited the advent of a critic who could discover flaws in the paranormality claims. For me to suggest this would imply the grossest hypocrisy on Mr. Randi's part. But to refresh his memory, and help him along, and despite the refusal of some of his colleagues like Professor Kurtz, Professor Hyman and Dr. Susan Blackmore to meet the challenge, I list the requisite references. They are based on (although not identical to) a list of twenty cases suggestive of survival prepared by Professor Archie Roy and published some years ago in the SPR's magazine, The Paranormal Review as an invitation or challenge to skeptics to demonstrate how any of these cases could be explained by "normal" i.e. non-paranormal, means. Thus far there have been no takers. It is now Mr. Randi's chance to vindicate his claims.
--------------------

AND HERE ARE THE CASES FROM WHICH MR. RANDI MAY WISH TO SELECT A HANDFUL TO ANSWER:

1. The Watseka Wonder, 1887. Stevens, E.W. 1887 The Watseka Wonder, Chicago; Religio-philosophical Publishing House, and Hodgson R., Religio-Philosophical Journal Dec. 20th, 1890, investigated by Dr. Hodgson.

2. Uttara Huddar and Sharada. Stevenson I. and Pasricha S, 1980. A preliminary report on an unusual case of the reincarnation type with Xenoglossy. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 74, 331-348; and Akolkar V.V. Search for Sharada: Report of a case and its investigation. Journal of the American SPR 86,209-247.

3. Sumitra and Shiva-Tripathy. Stevenson I. and Pasricha S, and McLean-Rice, N 1989. A Case of the Possession Type in India with evidence of Paranormal Knowledge. Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration 3, 81-101.

4. Jasbir Lal Jat. Stevenson, I, 1974. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (2nd edition) Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

5. The Thompson/Gifford case. Hyslop, J.H. 1909. A Case of Veridical Hallucinations Proceedings, American SPR 3, 1-469.

6. Past-life regression. Tarazi, L. 1990. An Unusual Case of Hypnotic Regression with some Unexplained Contents. Journal of the American SPR, 84, 309-344.

7. Cross-correspondence communications. Balfour J. (Countess of) 1958-60 The Palm Sunday Case: New Light On an Old Love Story. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 52, 79-267.

8. Book and Newspaper Tests. Thomas, C.D. 1935. A Proxy Case extending over Eleven Sittings with Mrs Osborne Leonard. Proceedings SPR 43, 439-519.

9. "Bim's" book-test. Lady Glenconnor. 1921. The Earthen Vessel, London, John Lane.

10. The Harry Stockbridge communicator. Gauld, A. 1966-72. A Series of Drop-in Communicators. PSPR 55, 273-340.

11. The Bobby Newlove case. Thomas, C. D. 1935. A proxy case extending over Eleven Sittings with Mrs. Osborne Leonard. PSPR 43, 439-519.

12. The Runki missing leg case. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975. A Communicator of the Drop-in Type in Iceland: the case of Runolfur Runolfsson. JASPR 69. 33-59.

13. The Beidermann drop-in case. Gauld, A. 1966-72. A Series of Drop-in Communicators. PSPR 55, 273-340.

14. The death of Gudmundur Magnusson. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975. A Communicator of the Drop-in Type in Iceland: the case of Gudni Magnusson, JASPR 69, 245-261.

15. Identification of deceased officer. Lodge, O. 1916. Raymond, or Life and Death. London. Methuen & Co. Ltd.16. Mediumistic evidence of the Vandy death. Gay, K. 1957. The Case of Edgar Vandy, JSPR 39, 1-64; Mackenzie, A. 1971. An Edgar Vandy Proxy Sitting. JSPR 46, 166-173; Keen, M. 2002. The case of Edgar Vandy: Defending the Evidence, JSPR 64.3 247-259; Letters, 2003, JSPR 67.3. 221-224.

17. Mrs Leonore Piper and the George "Pelham" communicator. Hodgson, R. 1897-8. A Further Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance. PSPR, 13, 284-582.

18. Messages from "Mrs. Willett" to her sons. Cummins, G. 1965. Swan on a Black Sea. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

19. Ghostly aeroplane phenomena. Fuller, J.G. 1981 The Airmen Who Would Not Die, Souvenir Press, London.

20. Intelligent responses via two mediums: the Lethe case. Piddington, J.G. 1910. Three incidents from the Sittings. Proc. SPR 24, 86-143; Lodge, O. 1911. Evidence of Classical Scholarship and of Cross-Correspondence in some New Automatic Writing. Proc. 25, 129-142,

 

[SteveGrenard]

Regarding the remark above re Serio's thoughtography experiments, it is neither here nor there whether or not Keen accepts that evidence. What is much more important is the following:

Mr. Randi notoriously failed to fulfil his boast to be able to replicate Ted Serios' "thoughtography" tests (as described by his investigator, Dr Jule Eisenbud in The World of Ted Serios Jonathan Cape.

Although I do not myself know the details, in fact I have no idea what thoughtography actually is...it appears as though Randi claimed he could conjuor or whatever Serio's work. If anyone knows if he has done so, the evidence of that would be appreciated. As of now, Keen says he has not done so.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Regarding the remark above re Serio's thoughtography experiments, it is neither here nor there whether or not Keen accepts that evidence. What is much more important is the following:

Although I do not myself know the details, in fact I have no idea what thoughtography actually is...it appears as though Randi claimed he could conjuor or whatever Serio's work. If anyone knows if he has done so, the evidence of that would be appreciated. As of now, Keen says he has not done so.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=27448&highlight=serios
which contains this excellent link: http://www.niler.com/estitle.html

I believe Randi deals with the subject of Serios in Flim-Flam, but my copy is at home.

From the Swift, 2003-09-19:
http://www.randi.org/jr/091903.html

Keen continues to run on about the tired old situation with Ted Serios and Jule Eisenbud, getting this material from Internet sources. But he avoids the Internet material from my web page, of course; that might provide data he finds damaging to that case. The Serios tricks are ancient history, being done now by kid magicians at amateur shows. Eisenbud's demands that I replicate an anecdotal performance by Serios, dressed in a seamless rubber suit and drunk, as Serios usually was when performing, even though I don't drink at all. He even wanted me to have the same blood-alcohol level as Serios! These provisions, and others, were just comical, and below serious consideration. When I very effectively replicated the basic Serios trick on a live TV show in New York with Serios and Eisenbud present, Eisenbud was flabbergasted. Serios just didn't care, and smiled wanly. And yes, I have the videotape.

Skeptic's dictionary

 

[SteveGrenard]

Thanks for the references. Do any say anything about what "live" TV show this was? It would be interesting to see that videotape. I could send it to Keen for comment. Some such tapes are available from archivists in NY who record every live show but the date and name of the show would be necessary to find it.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Thanks for the references. Do any say anything about what "live" TV show this was? It would be interesting to see that videotape. I could send it to Keen for comment. Some such tapes are available from archivists in NY who record every live show but the date and name of the show would be necessary to find it.

I don't know. If I remember I'll check my copy of FlimFlam tonight. The Niles Root web article linked above is excellent, I recommend it.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

So the challenge is to take anecdotes from up to a hundred years ago and "explain" them? That's his serious "challenge"?


I assume Keen is just as open to explanations as he proved to be in the thread involving the eighteen year old murder looked at by stumpy and youens.

 

[SteveGrenard]

AP: I don't know. If I remember I'll check my copy of FlimFlam tonight. The Niles Root web article linked above is excellent, I recommend it.

Thanks. The N Root article was very interesting and at least I know now what thoughtography is supposed to be. LOL.

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Sigh...

In response to a request above regarding 20 items Montague Keen asked Randi to explain, I am forwarding that list of items herewith along with the preface to that challenge:

*** 20 "cases" followed - many from the 1800's - all from books or Paranormal publications.***

This is it huh??

Forgive me if I'm not immediately won over by evidence in a book!

Look, Keen must know that Randi isn't going to read one of these books or monographs and then hand over the $$. Paranormal abilities must be DEMONSTRATED to the Randi foundation in a test that both the applicant and the foundation find acceptable. Can't Keen understand this concept?

Suggestion for Mr. Keen;
Find those people involved in some of these (maybe #6 or #10) and have them APPLY!!!!! It is not up to Randi to prove that there were no paranormal attributes successfully demonstrated in these 20 cases, it is up to Mr. Keen to demonstrate - in a controlled setting - that the paranormal is at work here.

The challenge to Mr. Randi and friends

I am not applying for Mr. Randi's $million but only for some evidence that his challenge is genuine.

Sure you are Keen.

By now you know the rules of the challenge quite well, but you insist on interpreting them in a manner that you MUST know is unacceptable to Randi's Foundation.

Perhaps your blind obtuseness plays well with your credophile buds - but it ain't working on this critical thinker.

Oh wait - I almost forgot;

“We are dealing with a mysterious faculty that does not subscribe to the normal rules governing the senses, cannot be turned on and off to order, and which manifests itself in all manner of odd ways and unpredictable occasions.”

Barkhorn.

 

[arcticpenguin]

AP: I don't know. If I remember I'll check my copy of FlimFlam tonight. The Niles Root web article linked above is excellent, I recommend it.

Thanks. The N Root article was very interesting and at least I know now what thoughtography is supposed to be. LOL.

Randi deals with Serios and 'thoughtography' in FlimFlam!, pages 222-227. Here's from page 226:

Eisenbud, demonstrating perfectly the irrationality of his kind, issued a challenge to me following the NBC "Today" show on which we had appeared with Serios and TV personality Hugh Downs. It was his inane idea that I submit to a preposterous set of controls - this after it had become quite plain to all investigators that his Trilby had been allowed to operate under the loosest and most incredible circumstances. Iwas to allow myself to be searched - including "a thorough inspection of body orifices" - and then "stripped, clad in a monkey suit, and sealed in a steel-walled, lead-lined, soundproof, windowless chamber." I had to be drunk as well. Then, I was to produce pictures. Why? Because Ted Serios operated under those conditions, said Eisenbud. Oh, yeah? When Reynolds, Eisendrath, and Diaconis were there, doctor, the security was so bad that not only was Serios allowed to wander in and out of the room, but Diaconis was able to switch a whole batch of film right under your nose, and you never knew it! And I have all three witnesses (sober, and not in monkey suits).

1) Does that sound like a reasonable ordeal for Randi to submit himself to?

2)If you read the Root article, you know the "controls" placed on Serios were nothing like that.

3) FlimFlam! was published in 1982, perhaps Mr. Keen is a bit behind on his reading.

 

[LTC8K6]

classical cases of paranormality

Yeah, right!

I have a classical picture of bigfoot.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

As what is being tested by the JREF challenge is pretty well defined, how does offering a number of stories that clearly do not match those conditions support his stated desire to find "some evidence that his challenge is genuine"?

What is the connection between these 20 stories dating back 100 years and trying to determine if the JREF challenge is "genuine"?

Presumably, if you wanted to find out if the challenge is real, you would . . . . find something that you feel meets the requirements of the Challenge? Just a thought.

 

[SteveGrenard]

It's hysterical actually and certainly not reasonable. Nevertheless Randi was purporting to show how the trick was done, not that he had to suit up and become drunk and somehow duplicate what Serios was claiming to do in the state. Did Serios wear a rubber suit? Was he searched? Did he have a body cavity search? We know he was drunk. That was easy to confirm.

To me the problem is simpler than what Randi complains about although I absolutely sympathize with his complaint. Just duplicate what Serios was doing through conjuroring. Period. Do the trick. I think that this is twhat the issue comes down to.
There is, based on this, no reason to search and buy the Today show archival footage as it appears from the account in FlimFlam the test went nowhere on that occasion. Also without the exact date it may be impossible to locate since these shows are only indexed by date not about all the people that walk on and off during a show.

 

[SteveGrenard]

NoZed this has nothing to do with the challenge per se. It stems from a statement averred by Randi that he could explain anything by natural means including things purportedly paranormal. His safe harbor, the reason he never will have to give up his donors bonds, is because of this. As a result of this Keen asked him if he could explain paranormal events of note by normal or natural explanations and this is the origin of the list. Someone above asked what the list was since Keen refers to it in his latest response to Randi.

I hope that explains its significance to you and why it was reposted above. It was to comply with a request to provide it.
In fact if it was NOT complied with we would hear back-talk about that. So derision comes either way. This is evident.

 

[arcticpenguin]

It's hysterical actually and certainly not reasonable. Nevertheless Randi was purporting to show how the trick was done, not that he had to suit up and become drunk and somehow duplicate what Serios was claiming to do in the state. Did Serios wear a rubber suit? Was he searched? Did he have a body cavity search? We know he was drunk. That was easy to confirm.

To me the problem is simpler than what Randi complains about although I absolutely sympathize with his complaint. Just duplicate what Serios was doing through conjuroring. Period. Do the trick. I think that this is twhat the issue comes down to.
There is, based on this, no reason to search and buy the Today show archival footage as it appears from the account in FlimFlam the test went nowhere on that occasion. Also without the exact date it may be impossible to locate since these shows are only indexed by date not about all the people that walk on and off during a show.

Randi did the trick. That's what the appearance on Today was about. Eisenbud's "challenge" was an attempt to tighten up controls on Randi's trickery; controls that were never placed on Serios.

Others did the trick as well, as covered in the Niles Root article and elsewhere.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I hope that explains its significance to you and why it was reposted above. It was to comply with a request to provide it.
In fact if it was NOT complied with we would hear back-talk about that. So derision comes either way. This is evident.

The derisive tone of any replies may simply be in response to the tone set by the original comments originating from Mr. Keen. And the comments about how or why the list was supposed to test the genuineness of the JREF challenge have nothing to do with whether the list was provided in this particular thread, but why it was created in the first place.

As the list was mentioned as part of Keen's discussion over the challenge, I simply tried to discover what the connection was. That has been partially answered, though I don't know what specific comment from Randi supposedly sparked it.

But Mr. Keen's comments -- specifically,

"If the offer were a genuine attempt to discover the truth, then it ought to apply to anyone who can provide evidence with adequate records, oral and written, from several or more witnesses or participants, backed up by photographic records. . . "

. . . led me to believe that he feels the challenge should be extended so that anyone who can present stories -- like this list -- should be allowed to participate in the challenge. I see that as impossible, on several grounds.

It also seems to be an attempt to place the burden of proof on Randi regarding stories that are years/decades old and have Randi describe possible solutions, which can then be argued about ad infinitum. I cannot imagine someone can take a case from 100 years ago, for example, and seriously think that a thorough investigation can be done on it. Even if it were possible, Keen (from the other thread in which his comments have appeared) seems to require a skeptic to come up with a "smoking gun" type of absolute proof, rather than merely evidence.

These types of arguments are precisely why the challenge -is- limited. Test conditions and the standard for a "pass" must be agreed on before-hand. There can be no ambiguity about what is to be done and how it may be achieved, or else all you have is one more inconclusive argument.

N/A

 

[NoZed Avenger]

There is, based on this, no reason to search and buy the Today show archival footage as it appears from the account in FlimFlam the test went nowhere on that occasion.

It does? The text quoted by AP doesn't actually mention the demonstration on the Today show directly -- is there something further in the book that led to this conclusion (I don't have it with me to look)?


N/A

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Agreed....

The derisive tone of any replies may simply be in response to the tone set by the original comments originating from Mr. Keen. And the comments about how or why the list was supposed to test the genuineness of the JREF challenge have nothing to do with whether the list was provided in this particular thread, but why it was created in the first place.

Yes, the derisive comments by me were in response to Keen's. And I agree w/ you 100% on this issue.

"It also seems to be an attempt to place the burden of proof on Randi regarding stories that are years/decades old and have Randi describe possible solutions, which can then be argued about ad infinitum. I cannot imagine someone can take a case from 100 years ago, for example, and seriously think that a thorough investigation can be done on it. Even if it were possible, Keen (from the other thread in which his comments have appeared) seems to require a skeptic to come up with a "smoking gun" type of absolute proof, rather than merely evidence."

...this is exactly my point as well.

Let me state this once again. If Keen feels that this Charles guy or JE (or any other living being) offer compelling evidence for the paranormal, then he needs to get them to apply for the prize - according to the rules.

Keen should cut out the "retro-active, burden of proof is on you Randi, who made a small mistatment of fact about a hack magician 15 years ago and called a fat lady ugly" posturing crap and prove it to us all that the paranormal exists.

Barkhorn.

 

[SteveGrenard]

NoZed, nothing defensive. Merely explanatory. You came into this late and evidently did not read the earlier request for details re this or how it came about.
I provided those 20 items and then I prvided you and others with how it came about. If you now wish to label a simple explanation in response to your post deriding these 20 items, as defensive, so be it. It gets worse and worse. Funny and funnier.

This reminds one of the Peter Sellers skit where a simple statement had to pass through five translators before the target person could understand it. As the subtitles hilariously demonstrated, the original and final statements were complete opposites. You guys play this three stooges game very well. LOL

 

[NoZed Avenger]

NoZed, nothing defensive. Merely explanatory. You came into this late and evidently did not read the earlier request for details re this or how it came about.
I provided those 20 items and then I prvided you and others with how it came about. If you now wish to label a simple explanation in response to your post deriding these 20 items, as defensive, so be it. It gets worse and worse. Funny and funnier.

Perhaps you can show where I did indeed label that as "defensive"?

You guys play this three stooges game very well. LOL

"Derisive" comment noted, Curly Joe.