Pamphlet--Do you believe in Magic?

[Mercutio]

I found a pamphlet today, sitting on a planter halfway between the video store and the grocery store...put out by the good folks at RBC Ministries, promising to lead me through the complicated area of "magic"...with advice about the Harry Potter books, the Lord of the Rings movies, the Chronicles of Narnia, and of course, the science of parapsychology.

The RBC people are non-denominational (it is claimed, anyway), and are (by far) not the most extreme position on these issues...and they even cite sources for some of their parapsychology studies (Rhine, e.g., and Sagan)! See, but that is the problem; they tell a story in great detail, including quoted speech, without any citation whatsoever. Not surprising for a pamphlet, but they had cited sources for so many other things....so, I post this here in the hopes that someone will be able to provide a source...or to provide evidence that none exists.

The pamphlet says...

" A parapsychologist at UCLA had been contacted by a woman who claimed to be harassed by a molevelant 'spirit entity." [note--unlike the rest of the pamphlet, neither the researcher nor the woman are named.] She said it would push her around and make her life miserable. When the team for psychic research arrived [note: again, no citation--who?], they were equipped with various instruments for recording the phenomenon [um....no comment]. According to their report [not cited], after the team spent some time [how much?] in the woman's home, the 'spirit entity' entered the room where they were standing.

"The parapsychologists [still un-named] said they witnessed the formation of a full-bodied apparition. They saw the head and then the shoulders. Eventually, a greenish white light took the shape of a human form. Cameras took photographs of paranormal images [um...not reproduced in the pamphlet] that appeared before the astonished [but still un-named] scientists.

"The film that captured the form was successfully developed. Excitedly, the parapsychologist showed the 'proof' to one of his colleagues in one of the 'hard science' departments.

" 'There must be something wrong with your camera or film. These can't be photographs of what you tell me they are.' the scientist replied.

"The parapsychologist [remarkably, still un-named] was dissappointed. 'All my life I had been looking for proof of the paranormal. Then when I finally got it, my friends in mainstream science wouldn't accept it.' The scientist didn't have a category for the evidence, so he dismissed it.

Anyone heard of this event? I have not...

 

[Marian]

I think this refers to it.

http://wintersteel.homestead.com/The_Entity.html

 

[dharlow]

Marian's correct. It's the Culver City case investigated by Barry Taff and Kerry Gaynor.

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

The spirit was 'full bodied', therefore I submit it was made of a good Irish stout.

Upon further investigation, the 'entity' which 'pushed the woman around' turned out to be her husband. Ba-doom-boom! Thank you, I'm here all century.

 

[Mercutio]

Thanks, Marian.

I still wonder why, when so much of the rest of the pamphlet included proper citations, this one went without...

 

[dharlow]

I still wonder why, when so much of the rest of the pamphlet included proper citations, this one went without...

Pretty typical of most anything regarding the paranormal. Most people (believers or skeptics) cite references from more contemporary books, rather than reading the original work themselves. Hence, they rely on someone else's interpretation of this original work, and sometimes that interpretation itself is based on yet another person's interpretation, etc... The Taff/Gaynor case was published in a difficult-to-access journal (Theta), which is no longer published. I have seen this case mentioned by others who, when I asked, did not know where it was originally published. Unless one is willing to look hard for it and ask around, it is unlikely to be found.

 

[Mercutio]

Pretty typical of most anything regarding the paranormal. Most people (believers or skeptics) cite references from more contemporary books, rather than reading the original work themselves. Hence, they rely on someone else's interpretation of this original work, and sometimes that interpretation itself is based on yet another person's interpretation, etc... The Taff/Gaynor case was published in a difficult-to-access journal (Theta), which is no longer published. I have seen this case mentioned by others who, when I asked, did not know where it was originally published. Unless one is willing to look hard for it and ask around, it is unlikely to be found.

Well, I thank you for the information--Should be enough for me to dig up the original in our library or through interlibrary loan.

 

[Vim Razz]

Ack! This is the conculsive "proof of the paranomal" refered to?

Edit: By the by, note the orientation of the "light arcs" in relation to where the ceiling lamp apears to be (from the light splash patern on the walls and ceiling).

 

[Mercutio]

Ack! This is the conculsive "proof of the paranomal" refered to?

Edit: By the by, note the orientation of the "light arcs" in relation to where the ceiling lamp apears to be (from the light splash patern on the walls and ceiling).

I will withhold judgment until I read the original, but it does seem odd that if "The parapsychologists said they witnessed the formation of a full-bodied apparition. They saw the head and then the shoulders. Eventually, a greenish white light took the shape of a human form. Cameras took photographs of paranormal images that appeared before the astonished scientists", that this picture is the best available. The pamphlet certainly implies that the photographic evidence is of a "full-bodied apparition". I see no body, let alone a full body.

 

[Vim Razz]

That had been my impression as well -- hence the "Ack!"

In the account Marian linked, Taff and Gaynor describe a big difference in what they "saw" and what came up on film.

And speaking of pictures, they also detail a series of photos where the area of "manifestation" blurs / obscures the face of the subject, altough I haven't been able to find these myself.

As for "visual" effects, they describe seeing light paterns / orbs and at least one fully manifest apparition, but these did not show on film aparently.

In RBC's account, I find it interesting that they juggled words a bit to imply more definitive evidence without actually saying it was evident. They simply cut from one subject to the next: "...greenish white light took the shape of a human form. Cameras took photographs of paranormal images..." Slippery.