The Rosenheim Case

[Kuko 4000]

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.

...

This might not be so much actively avoided by skeptics as it could be a dead horse -slash- blast from the past.

Yeah, this is what I've been feeling from the start, I just want to be sure.

Could some of the German speaking forum members take a look at those papers? They are perfectly readable when you click & zoom them a couple of times. Is there anything even remotely meaningful?

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.

Much appreciated blutoski, interesting stuff, I'm going to ask my para-buddys comment on this.

 

[Kuko 4000]

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.

Well, "poppycock" is more or less what I've been saying to my para-buddy regarding the "evidence" he's shown to me. I just haven't been able to read the papers yet. I thought this was clear from the start...

And it seems you aren't too impressed with the case, either.

Correct, I'm not one bit impressed by the "evidence" shown.

So what is your point?

Uh....my point is to understand this case better, and because the papers of the two Max Planck university physicists is their key "evidence" I would like to understand what the papers say. I'm not holding breath, if that's what you're thinking.

Are you trying to find out how an investigation can be done badly?

No, but this might very well be one of the many examples of that.

Do you think there may be something to this case that makes it a valid paranormal event?

No.

What do you hope to accomplish by digging into the data you have supplied? Do you expect to find gold in the garbage?

Better overall understanding. No, I'm not expecting to find anything substantial at all, I'm open to being proved wrong though, that's why I'm discussing this case with my convinced para-buddy.

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.

Thanks for the advice. I will, however, do my best to make him see the problems of his position.

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

I've done that numerous times, first about a month ago. He says he's a bit busy, but I'm hopeful he will join the forum in the near future.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Do you mean these?

In the first video (the one with color):
At about 1:50 :
The guy says that they got themselves a video recorder. He then explicitly says that they were lucky to catch one (you can hear the emphasis) phenomenon. I infer that there is only this one piece of footage showing something.

Shortly afterward (~2:00) you see a few seconds of footage of this small TV playing some bad footage showing a picture that is first straight, then suddenly half-turned. That's apparently all there is.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Danke schoen GG, this is my understanding as well, the only "authentic" video material is the one from the painting the evidence value of these vids must be very close to zero.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Kuko,
Perhaps your buddy would tell you just what is so convincing about this case?

If he can cite any substantiated evidence that's been cross-checked, that woud be interesting.

If he can show any footage other than the crud we saw, that'd be terrific.

It seems that he's saying that because these were "notable" physicists associated with a "notable" institution, then this must be a "notable" investigation. I think it's already been shown that one of them is rather woo-ish, and while he now claims (if I read it correctly) that this was the event that shook up his whole way of looking at the world, we have only that citation from that linked article (repeated in various forms but always almost identically the same quote, so obviously a single source) and no one's offered anything that shows that he was anti-woo prior to that.

It rather smacks of argument from authority. Add that to the previously noted confirmation bias. This guy could be an introductory textbook in illogic!

 

[Kuko 4000]

About the cross checking, he says the original research was published in a peer reviewed journal. I don't think he is able to show any further video footage, and this was anyways enough to convince him.

It rather smacks of argument from authority. Add that to the previously noted confirmation bias. This guy could be an introductory textbook in illogic!

Indeed..

 

[Kuko 4000]

Danke schoen GG, this is my understanding as well, the only "authentic" video material is the one from the painting the evidence value of these vids must be very close to zero.

Bender was able to document on video how the lights immediately started to flicker once she entered the office.

http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Poltergeist#Story_of_the_Rosenheim_Poltergeist

Well, looks like there is...something else after all, maybe.



More from that same link:

Some scientists and skeptics propose that all poltergeist activity that they can't trace to fraud has a physical explanation such as static electricity, electromagnetic fields, ultra-, and infrasound and/or ionized air. In some cases, such as the Rosenheim poltergeist case, the physicist F. Karger from the Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik and G. Zicha from the Technical University of Munich found none of these effects present and psi proponents claim that no evidence of fraud was ever found, even after a sustained investigation from the police force and CID, though criminologist Herbert Schäfer quotes an unnamed detective watching the agent pushing a lamp when she thought nobody was looking. However, whether this is true or not, police officers did sign statements that they had witnessed the phenomena.

How come I haven't heard even a mention of this from my para-buddy?

 

[Sherman Bay]

About the cross checking, he says the original research was published in a peer reviewed journal.

It might be interesting to find out more about what journal this was. Woos know that skeptics look for such things, but a study proving homeopathy right published in an all-homeopathy journal right next to the ads for trips to Jupiter on UFOs isn't quite the same as a JAMA article.

 

[Georg]

I thought the best thing to do is to ask the person involved, so I just sent this mail to to the contact mail adress (info@DrKarger.com) given on his website:

Sehr geehrter Dr. Karger,

im Forum der website von www.randi.org (dies ist die website von James Randi, der sich als ehemaliger Magier seit Jahrzehnten mit der Erklärung vermeintlich paranormaler Phänomene beschäftigt und eine Million Dollar für den Beweis eines solchen ausgesetzt hat) findet derzeit eine Diskussion über die vermeintlichen Poltergeistaktivitäten in Rosenheim statt, die Sie damals untersucht haben.
Link zur Diskussion: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122348

Falls Sie sich an der Diskussion beteiligen möchten, ist eine Anmeldung zum Forum erforderlich.
Diese ist unter http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/register.php möglich, Forumssprache ist Englisch.

Seien Sie gewarnt, dass die Mehrheit der Schreiber dort eine äußerst skeptische Einstellung zu dieser Art Phänomenen hat und auf wasserdichten wissenschaftlichen Beweisen besteht, die bis heute nicht erbracht wurden. Auch ich teile diese Einstellung, und ich möchte Sie nicht unter der falschen Vermutung dort "hinlocken", dass Sie durch eine Beteiligung einem Gläubigem einen Gefallen tun, oder sich dort unter Gleichgesinnten bewegen würden.

Falls Sie kein Interesse haben, bitte ich Sie trotzdem, folgende Fragen zu beantworten:

Stimmt das Gerücht, dass Ihre Untersuchungsergebnisse in einem "peer reviewed journal" veröffentlicht wurden?
Falls ja, wo und wann?

Auf welche Weise haben Sie und der Rest des Teams sich gegen Täuschung/Betrug abgesichert? Gab es Unterstützung durch Profis auf diesem Fachgebiet wie z.B. einem Magier o. ä., die aufgrund ihres Berufes eher dazu prädestiniert sind, Täuschungen zu erkennen als Wissenschaftler?

Ich freue mich auf Ihre Antwort und weise Sie darauf hin, dass ich sowohl meine Anfrage an Sie, als auch Ihre Reaktion darauf im Forum veröffentlichen werde.

Mit freundlichem Gruß,

Georg xxxxxx

which roughly translates to:

Dear Mr. Karger,

on the website www.randi.org (that´s the website of James Randi, who, as a former magician, is engaged in explaining assumed paranormal phenomena since decades and put up a price of one million dollars for one being proven) a discussion takes place about the assumed Poltergeist activities in Rosenheim that you examined at that time.

Link to the discussion: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122348

If you want to take part in the discussion, you have to register.
This is possible under http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/register.php, forum language is English.

Be warned that the majority of posters there has a very skeptical attitude towards that kind of phenomena and insists on waterproof scientific evidence which has not been shown until today. I share that attitude and do not want to "lure" you there under the wrong premise that you would do a favour to a believer or that you would find yourself between likeminded people there.

In case you are not interested, I still ask you to answer the following questions:

Is the rumour true that you published your results in a "peer reviewed journal"?
If so, where and when?

How did you and the rest of the team protect yourselves against trickery/fraud?
Did you have support from professionals in that field, for example a magician, who, because of their job, are more predestined to recognise trickery than scientists?

I´m looking forward to your reply and inform you that I will publish my inquiry as well as your reaction on the forum.

yours sincerely,


Georg xxxxxx

We´ll see..........

 

[Kuko 4000]

Georg, excellent job, much appreciated, again

Looking fwd to the reply.

 

[Georg]

Georg, excellent job, much appreciated, again

Thank you!

Looking fwd to the reply.

If I´d had to place a bet, I´d say there will be no reply. Call me a skeptic.....
But, life is full of surprises, so I guess we have to wait for a while before reaching a conclusion. I´ll keep you updated, of course.

 

[blutoski]

About the cross checking, he says the original research was published in a peer reviewed journal.

I guess we'd be grateful for a citation so we could examine the paper. Was that the one you scanned in? I don't want to review an article if it's not actually the one he's talking about.

Also, remind him to watch for three common issues with claims of 'published in a peer-reviewed jornal'...

• what peers? (If he's trying convince scientists, an article in Woo Monthly would not elevate it to greater credibility than if it wasn't)
• was the article itself actually peer-reviewed? (many peer-reviewed journals are very willing to publish material that is not iself peer-reviewed, as part of their mandate to support open discussion - sometimes the journal even has an accompanying editorial saying that they think it's crackpottery, and published it as an example of how-not-to-do-science)
• was it even an article? (I don't know how many times I get a healthfraud story that thumps how they're published in a peer reviewed journal, and when I finally get the reference, it's just the salesman writing a cranky letter to the editor that the journal felt generous enough to publish)

I don't think he is able to show any further video footage, and this was anyways enough to convince him.

Bummer.

 

[Georg]

No answer from Dr. Karger so far.

I looked on the G.W.U.P. homepage (German skeptic organisation) and found a little snippet regarding the case:

In zahlreichen Fällen konnte jedoch Betrug und Manipulation nachgewiesen werden, so z. B. beim Fall "Chopper" 1982 in einer Regensburger Zahnarztpraxis oder beim "Spukfall" von Rosenheim 1967 in einer Anwaltskanzlei.

where they stated that fraud and manipulation was shown to have taken place. Since no further explanation was given, I asked them for sources through their contact form.
If I hear anything from them, I´ll let you know.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

No answer from Dr. Karger so far.

I wouldn't answer either

I looked on the G.W.U.P. homepage (German skeptic organisation) and found a little snippet regarding the case:



where they stated that fraud and manipulation was shown to have taken place. Since no further explanation was given, I asked them for sources through their contact form.
If I hear anything from them, I´ll let you know.

I guess this refers to what Kuko quotes above:
...though criminologist Herbert Schäfer quotes an unnamed detective watching the agent pushing a lamp when she thought nobody was looking.

The de.wiki entry on Hans Bender also included the mention that Kriminaldirektor Herbert Schäfer obtained a confession of fraud in another case that Bender declared real.
It also mention that one instance of manipulation in the Rosenheim case was found but is frustratingly vague on what it was or how it was found.
It sources it to:
Herbert Schäfer: Poltergeister und Professoren. Über den Zustand der Parapsychologie, 1994

Hopefully the GWUP has that in its library.

 

[Kuko 4000]

My para-buddy finally registered, he's now waiting for a confirmation e-mail. Nice

 

[Georg]

I wouldn't answer either

Understandable, yes. No answer would still be an answer. At least for me....

I guess this refers to what Kuko quotes above:
...though criminologist Herbert Schäfer quotes an unnamed detective watching the agent pushing a lamp when she thought nobody was looking.

That´s what I think as well, but maybe there is more....

The de.wiki entry on Hans Bender also included the mention that Kriminaldirektor Herbert Schäfer obtained a confession of fraud in another case that Bender declared real.
It also mention that one instance of manipulation in the Rosenheim case was found but is frustratingly vague on what it was or how it was found.
It sources it to:
Herbert Schäfer: Poltergeister und Professoren. Über den Zustand der Parapsychologie, 1994

Hopefully the GWUP has that in its library.

I think there is no doubt that Bender was either a weirdo, a fraud or a combination of both, so his claims are not to be taken serious anyway.
A clear statement of Schäfer would be great, but I´m not willing to buy the book because of that.
No answer from Karger or the G.W.U.P. so far.

 

[Lusikka]

Hi all, here is the "para-buddy" calling. The fool and believer, who takes seriously both the Rosenheim case and Uri Geller. Fool and believer? Yes, I think it is your opinion on this thread. Some quotes:

"I wasn't much surprised to find a lot of woo-ish mentions of his name, either. Anyone who validates Geller is either a hoaxster or a great example of that group from the scientific community that Randi always mentions as easily fooled."

"Stands to reason that your debater/debatee got his "most interesting case" directly from the Geller book." --> "It was, btw, the most 'scientifically convincing case' what I asked for."

"It seems that he's saying that because these were "notable" physicists associated with a "notable" institution, then this must be a "notable" investigation. I think it's already been shown that one of them is rather woo-ish, and while he now claims (if I read it correctly) that this was the event that shook up his whole way of looking at the world, we have only that citation from that linked article (repeated in various forms but always almost identically the same quote, so obviously a single source) and no one's offered anything that shows that he was anti-woo prior to that.

It rather smacks of argument from authority. Add that to the previously noted confirmation bias. This guy could be an introductory textbook in illogic!"

Well, so far I have not said anything on this forum. I think I am totally interested in evidence and only evidence, believe nothing without good enough evidence and I am not depending on authorities. If I am wrong, so I hope you will let me find the right path.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Excellent, welcome to the forums Lusikka!

Would you start by explaining why do you think this case is, for all practical purposes, a genuine psi-phenomenon?

Ps. I hope you stick around, there are many other topics you can contribute to as well.

 

[Lusikka]

Would you start by explaining why do you think this case is, for all practical purposes, a genuine psi-phenomenon?

There were so many and different kinds of phenomena. Nobody has been able to explain them in detail. It is always possible to say: everything was moved by pulling strings and tampering with the telephone lines and electric cables, child's play for even bad magicians. But that is no explanation for the case, because there are no supporting observations for such things. You are fussing much about the observation of the police officer. But even that incident is not explained in detail. Everything is only empty talk.

There were physical records, at least videos and chart recordings. The YouTube videos are not research videos and give no evidence in that respect. They are only short clips from much more material. But the videos are interesting, giving an inside look in the case. After reading the original articles there is confirmation to some observations, for example the marks in the ceiling the vigorously swinging lamps have left.

 

[Moochie]

I wouldn't answer either


I guess this refers to what Kuko quotes above:
...though criminologist Herbert Schäfer quotes an unnamed detective watching the agent pushing a lamp when she thought nobody was looking.

The de.wiki entry on Hans Bender also included the mention that Kriminaldirektor Herbert Schäfer obtained a confession of fraud in another case that Bender declared real.
It also mention that one instance of manipulation in the Rosenheim case was found but is frustratingly vague on what it was or how it was found.
It sources it to:
Herbert Schäfer: Poltergeister und Professoren. Über den Zustand der Parapsychologie, 1994

Hopefully the GWUP has that in its library.

The fact that this event occurred in Bavaria brings a smile to my face.

I'm German born but grew up in Australia from the age of six, so my German isn't great. Bavarian relatives of the family tended to be very Catholic and very superstitious, enough so that their beliefs in ghosts and hobgoblins infected my late mother, who regularly scared me and my siblings with reports of grotesque creatures sitting on her and attempting to suffocate her while she slept, and other tales of the supernatural.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there existed a predisposition for belief in such nonsense among these folk, even the highly educated, in which case "peer review" could well mean peers as in fellow believers.


M.

ETA: Welcome Lusikka!