The Rosenheim Case

[Moochie]

There is actual film footage of the heavy-looking overhead lights swinging like pendulums (I can't be arsed to do a Youtube search, but it's probably on there somewhere).
That's what I want explained. Forget all this waffling and flaming and wibbling over words. How might a hoaxer do it?

ETA: Moochie, I've already stated that I don't believe any of it was paranormal. I'd just like that bit of film footage explained. It certainly wasn't CGI.

That's OK sophia8. As for an explanation, your guess is as good as anyone's.

M.

 

[Gr8wight]

It can be shown, but not easily. That's why I think micro-PK won't be the first psychic phenomena that will be proven. I think presentiment will be the first to be proven. Once that happens other psychic phenomena will be looked at closer. Maybe then we can get a better handle on PK.

"Can be," or, "can't be" shown. These are improper terms in which to couch this discussion. We do not know if it can be or cannot be shown. Any statement to that effect is pure speculation. To date, there is only, "has yet to be" shown. Until there is actual, compelling evidence, you, Sir, are simply suffering from wishful thinking. Don't worry, you aren't alone. And you'll probably grow out of it.

Come back when evidence exists.

 

[blutoski]

Am I correct to understand that the thread was started as an attempt to analyze a 'best-case' of paranormality, to see if natural explanations could suffice?

I think the proper approach is to try to eliminate natural explanations before introducing and comparing paranormal ones. ie: introducing a million case studies for psi appears to be contrary to the purpose of the thread, which is to analyze one specific 'best case'.



So, in this case study...
These videos are singularly unimpressive, and this doesn't look like an actual 'investigation' was conducted. (Frankly, it looks more like a pilgrimage.)

Considering the testimony of "Allan" finding a line is to be weighed as strongly or weakly as any other testimony in this case study, and considering that lines are a perfectly good natural explanation for pretty much all of the observed phenomena... I would say that natural explanations / hoaxing cannot be eliminated. Allan's error was being specific about whom he accused of perpetrating the hoax - there's no way to know who was responsible, really. The staff in question could have been victims.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Am I correct to understand that the thread was started as an attempt to analyze a 'best-case' of paranormality, to see if natural explanations could suffice?

Thanks blutoski, my hope was (and is):

* to get more information and details regarding the case

* to form a better understanding of the scientific status / value of the two physicists research work based on analyzing the original papers (of which I have the scans in my e-mail, but they are in German)

* to understand if there is anything scientifically (or even otherwise) interesting documented at all, as this is a very central case in parapsychology and one that the paranormal scene says that the sceptics like to avoid

 

[Foolmewunz]

Thanks blutoski, my hope was (and is):

* to get more information and details regarding the case

* to form a better understanding of the scientific status / value of the two physicists research work based on analyzing the original papers (of which I have the scans in my e-mail, but they are in German)

* to understand if there is anything scientifically (or even otherwise) interesting documented at all, as this is a very central case in parapsychology and one that the paranormal scene says that the sceptics like to avoid

Kuko,
As I said above, if this is all there is, then tagging it as their most scientifically proven/backed paranormal event is fairly evident of the pathetic lack of real evidence they have for any cases, whatsoever. I keep thinking that maybe there's some other film or tape, because this bit is so obviously a recreation that the only way anyone would even consider it as "proof" would be if they started out with the most sever case of confirmation bias ever seen.

I like Blutoski's slant on it. It really is like a pilgrimage.


ETA: If they really say the skeptics fear tackling this one, why don't you invite them over? I'd like to see what they've got if there's any material other than this stuff.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Kuko,
As I said above, if this is all there is, then tagging it as their most scientifically proven/backed paranormal event is fairly evident of the pathetic lack of real evidence they have for any cases, whatsoever.

My thoughts exactly, however, no one has commented on the research papers yet, I assume the papers are the main point here for the para-community. The "interesting" personal life of (at least) the other physicist involved should not affect the validity of their study. It's been supposedly published in a peer reviewed journal. Any details, info and comments appreciated.

I'll try to ask my e-mail friend to join the boards again.

 

[Kuko 4000]

So you don't want a paranormal explanation. How about a perinormal explanation? Evidently the word was coined by Richard Dawkins, the perinormal is that which will soon become normal.

Here is the video of Richard coining the word:

PART 1:



PART 2:



It actually starts in part 2 @ about 2:20. It's a shame I couldn't locate the rest of the presentation, afaik it's on the TAM DVD, though.

Here's Randi & Richard talking about "perinormal" and the MDC after the presentation:

 

[Kuko 4000]

Ok, I found the attachment button, I hope this gets things moving, here are the papers:

 

[Kuko 4000]

And here are the rest:

 

[Sherman Bay]

Kuko 4000, there is no way we can explain how things happened, as we weren't there. The fact that a magician wasn't part of the investigation speaks volumes. What a physicist looks for and a magician looks for are worlds apart.

Let's take an example. I can do a card trick where you pick a card, put it back in the deck, and even though I didn't see your card, I can make it magically come to the top of the deck.

At least that's the way you might describe it.

To a physicist, this is impossible unless he invokes quantum tunnelling, string theory or other high-faluttin' nonsense. To a magician, there is more than one way this trick can be done. To suggest which one, the magician would have to be present or watch a recording of the event. Note that the description I gave above omits critical information -- was the deck always in your sight? Was there a mirror cup of coffee on the table (black coffee reflects very well)? Did I have on a shiny ring? Did I force your choice? Was the deck a standard deck or a prepared one? Did I palm the card when it was returned to the deck when you thought it was inserted at a random point? Was your attention diverted for an instant by something across the room? Would you have remembered that if it had seemed unrelated? Do you know what actions are unrelated to the trick and which ones are crucial?

Tricks that baffle you (and "scientists") may be absurdly simple to a magician, which is why paranormal investigations need to employ the services of one. You wouldn't hire a physicist to investigate a biological event because he may not be qualified; he also isn't qualified to detect trickery, either.

Randi once said that when things start flying across the room and falling over on their own, you are likely to find a teenage girl somewhere in the vicinity. I say Cherchez la femme.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Thanks Sherman, I'm familiar with what you wrote and, naturally, I agree. It was actually just yesterday that I demonstrated an act of mind reading to a Yoga teacher who is a new age "fan", and she was absolutely astounded. I'm just hoping to understand this case better, to see what it is they have in their best case. I still have questions about these papers. And in any case, as this is maybe the best documentation of a paranormal case, I think it's good to know as much about it as possible.

 

[Sherman Bay]

... And in any case, as this is maybe the best documentation of a paranormal case, I think it's good to know as much about it as possible.

If this is the best that can be found, and it is full of holes, what can we say about the rest of the paranormal field?

I have a large, coffee-table type book entitled, "UFOs -- the best evidence." Not just ANY evidence, but the BEST evidence. What kind of pictures are the best? Fuzzy, imprecise, blobs of nothing mixed with obvious pie pans and buttons thrown in the air. What does that say about the "science" of UFO hunting?

First, establish that the paranormal effect exists. Then, and only then, should you attempt to analyze how it works. No amount of charts, graphs and theories will serve to explain a phenomena if the phenomena can't be shown to exist in the first place. So far, all the reports of poltergeists sound a lot like some kid throwing a lamp when everyone's back was turned, or a nylon fishing line used to pull on something and make it move, or a natural sound given an unnatural explanation. Before you accept a paranormal explanation for anything, ask yourself this: could it be explained by simplier and possibly deliberately deceptive means?

 

[Kuko 4000]

Before you accept a paranormal explanation for anything, ask yourself this: could it be explained by simplier and possibly deliberately deceptive means?

Was this and the rest of the post aimed at me? If so, I'm sorry if I've been somehow unclear here. I don't, for a moment, think that anything paranormal happened in Rosenheim. What I'm doing here is going through the best "evidence" I can find for this particular case. And I could use some help finding and analyzing it.

The "evidence" seen in this thread was presented to me by my new e-mail friend, he thinks it's VERY convincing, convining enough for him to label this as a real case of paranormal phenomena. Now that I found a way to post the papers you can find all the necessary "evidence" from this thread. What I find interesting is that this guy is one of the central figures in the Finnish paranormal scene and these guys take pride in being scientific. If I get to know this case inside out I might be able to make some of these guys to think outside their little box for a minute or two.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Was this and the rest of the post aimed at me? If so, I'm sorry if I've been somehow unclear here. I don't, for a moment, think that anything paranormal happened in Rosenheim. What I'm doing here is going through the best "evidence" I can find for this particular case. And I could use some help finding and analyzing it.

What you have presented in the images (I looked at 3 of them, importing them into an image processing program so I could enlarge them easily) is useless, at least to me. The text is in German, and the images are so badly JPG-ed that the captions are unreadable, even if I did speak the language.

The "evidence" seen in this thread was presented to me by my new e-mail friend, he thinks it's VERY convincing, convining enough for him to label this as a real case of paranormal phenomena. Now that I found a way to post the papers you can find all the necessary "evidence" from this thread. What I find interesting is that this guy is one of the central figures in the Finnish paranormal scene and these guys take pride in being scientific. If I get to know this case inside out I might be able to make some of these guys to think outside their little box for a minute or two.

So translate some of it for us ignorant in German and explain what the diagrams mean. Not the whole thing, just what you (or your friend) thinks is the best of the best. Until you do that, it's undecipherable and there is no evidence.

 

[blutoski]

Thanks blutoski, my hope was (and is):

* to get more information and details regarding the case

* to form a better understanding of the scientific status / value of the two physicists research work based on analyzing the original papers (of which I have the scans in my e-mail, but they are in German)

Rather than the scans, do you have the citation? There may already be an English translation available. I'd expect so particularly if this is such an 'important' paranormal paper.

Is the work these physicists have published that is of concern specifically about this investigation? Or is it a question about their published work in general?

* to understand if there is anything scientifically (or even otherwise) interesting documented at all, as this is a very central case in parapsychology and one that the paranormal scene says that the sceptics like to avoid.

I guess it's a fine line between incomprehensible and just plain unremarkable.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Rather than the scans, do you have the citation? There may already be an English translation available. I'd expect so particularly if this is such an 'important' paranormal paper.

Exactly my thoughts, but this was all I got. And what you see now in this thread IS the "evidence"

Is the work these physicists have published that is of concern specifically about this investigation? Or is it a question about their published work in general?

The papers I posted are about the Rosenheim case, and yeah, the scientific value / quality of this case is what I'm interested in.

I guess it's a fine line between incomprehensible and just plain unremarkable.

Unremarkable is pretty much what I've been seeing from the start, I just want to be sure of it.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Sherman, with all respect, I don't think you've read the thread too carefully. That, or I just don't get your responses.

 

[blutoski]

I had a look at the wikipedia entry's citations, and they're available in English. They're basically testimonials, which is not really what skeptics are looking for in terms of 'convince me.'

For perspective, when a magician does a trick in front of an audience of 300 people, if we ask them all to sign an affadavit of what they saw, it would be a 'well documented' paranormal event, just like this one. It would not, however, be a well-investigated paranormal event.

Technically, there are many more much better-documented paranormal events today - we film them on television. Go down to the video store and compare a Penn & Teller video with its closeups and multiple-camera angle views to the weak footage obtained during the Rosenheim documentation.

One of the investigation protocols that we apply for our investigations is that there should be fewer investigators, and they should not consult one another during the investigation. The more people you get concentrated together, the more groupthink you get. When one person thinks he sees something that the others don't, it's natural for the others to later misremember that they saw it too.

The more people; the more imaginary sightings and the more misrememberings by the others until there's an orgy of evidence that maybe nobody even really saw.

That's why photography or video is a better measure of what actually happened than retrospective testimonials, although vulnerable to other problems. It's not unusual to have a situation where everybody writes down what they remember happened, but the video proves that they're just plain mistaken.

I'll have to locate a copy of the Asimov reference. This is an old case, so it may be that organized skepticism punted this one in the '70s, and we haven't heard much about it since. I'll also scan the indexes in my Nickell books. That sounds like his type of subjectmatter. This might not be so much actively avoided by skeptics as it could be a dead horse -slash- blast from the past.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Sherman, with all respect, I don't think you've read the thread too carefully. That, or I just don't get your responses.

Thanks for your respect. I deserve it.

I am not the only one who has pointed out that the case you are investigating doesn't have much validity. I believe Moochie called it poppycock.

And it seems you aren't too impressed with the case, either. So what is your point? Are you trying to find out how an investigation can be done badly? Do you think there may be something to this case that makes it a valid paranormal event? Not a paranormal event? What do you hope to accomplish by digging into the data you have supplied? Do you expect to find gold in the garbage?

I'm currently having a messenger and e-mail discussion with one paranormal fellow from Finland, he's been following this stuff for over 30 years now, written some articles, and he is a firm believer in PSI-phenomena.

If you're trying to show him the error of his ways, forget it. Although your attempt may be noble, the mind of the true believer cannot be changed and does not respond to reason.

Why don't you invite him to this forum and make the case himself?

 

[blutoski]

Just a progress report... I have been trying to find other references to the Rosenheim case, and it's not just getting thin coverage by skeptics... the paranormalists are not talking about it much either.

My first resource for older stories is Hanz Holzer's Ghosts, which contains what he holds to be the 162 best-case incidents. I would go so far as to say that it's virtually canonical for ghost investigators. Rosenheim didn't make the cut, and isn't mentioned even in reference in discussion of other stories.