The Rosenheim Case

[fls]

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.

Surely this argument applies 100 times more strongly against using psi as an explanation. Nobody can explain it in detail. It's always possible to say that psi can do these things, but since psi has never been conclusively demonstrated, how can we know what it can do? And even if we did know that it can do these things (i.e. make a lamp swing), there were no supporting observations that psi was present, just like there were no supporting observations that strings were present. It's only empty talk. And playing with strings and electric cables has the overwhelming advantage that we know these things actually exist and can account for what was seen. Psi has neither characteristic.

Linda

 

[Lusikka]

Surely this argument applies 100 times more strongly against using psi as an explanation. Nobody can explain it in detail. It's always possible to say that psi can do these things, but since psi has never been conclusively demonstrated, how can we know what it can do? And even if we did know that it can do these things (i.e. make a lamp swing), there were no supporting observations that psi was present, just like there were no supporting observations that strings were present. It's only empty talk. And playing with strings and electric cables has the overwhelming advantage that we know these things actually exist and can account for what was seen. Psi has neither characteristic.

Linda

Linda must have a deep conceptual confusion. There are plenty of of recorded observations of phenomena that have remained unexplained. But recorded observations of explanations are missing. Talking about given explanations is empty talk.

The phenomena are dependent from psychological situations. Therefore they cannot be assigned to natural causes - earthquakes, electromagnetic causes, tricks and so on. Therefore the only remaining cause is - psi. We know the natural causes, of course, but there is no help of them because observations of them are missing.

 

[Lusikka]

The phenomena are dependent from psychological situations. Therefore they cannot be assigned to natural causes - earthquakes, electromagnetic causes, tricks and so on. Therefore the only remaining cause is - psi. We know the natural causes, of course, but there is no help of them because observations of them are missing.

Sorry, bad logic. I meant this:

The phenomena are dependent from psychological situations. Therefore they cannot be assigned to natural causes - earthquakes, electromagnetic causes and so on. The very many phenomena cannot be assigned to tricks either, because there is only one so far undetailed case of tricks. Therefore the only remaining cause is - psi. We know the natural causes, of course, but there is no help of them because observations of them are missing.

 

[Georg]

Hi all, here is the "para-buddy" calling.

Welcome to the forum!

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.

Sounds good to me. Let´s test that.

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.

If no professional trickster (magician) has been at the place, it is hard to detect trickery. Scientists are not qualified in that field. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Trickery not being detected does not mean there was no trickery.

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.

So, what we have is some unexplained phenomena. Right. I´ll give you that.

The phenomena are dependent from psychological situations.

That is the point where I want to see the evidence, because that is a very bold claim. What I read so far, is that the phenomena are dependent on physical situations (in other words: they only happened when the young lady was there).
Show us the evidence for your claim!

Therefore they cannot be assigned to natural causes - earthquakes, electromagnetic causes and so on.

As long as there is no evidence for psychic action, no cookie.

The very many phenomena cannot be assigned to tricks either, because there is only one so far undetailed case of tricks.

That does not follow. Not at all. You have one case of trickery and some unexplained phenomena. How would you see the probabilities that those other phenomena are tricks as well or that they are "paranormal", and why? I´m interested in your reasoning.
Why is there a need to cheat at all if there are paranormal things going on?

Therefore the only remaining cause is - psi.

No. Not knowing a physical explanation does not equal that there is none, see above.

We know the natural causes, of course, but there is no help of them because observations of them are missing.

Sorry, I do not understand that one.

Summary: The person making the positive claim "there were Poltergeist activities" has the burden of proof. Missing physical explanations are not proof that it were paranormal events.
The evidence of a Poltergeist, god, spirit etc. being the cause of the phenomena has not been shown so far, it´s all speculation.
Your turn.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Welcome, Lussika!

I'm the person you multi-quoted in your opening post, and thank you for confirming just what I said.... thus far.

What we're generally questioning is that the evidence in this "case" looks so shoddy. For it to have made someone's "A List", we reckoned on considerably more than a badly chopped up B&W film from forty years ago. If you have studies, please cite them or show them.

Was there any actual research done at Rosenheim, other than a confirmed believer saying "it is so"? I do realize it was some time ago, and that it's highly unlikely that any sort of rigorous enquiry was launched into, but you should realize that same thing. What's been cited so far is just the jottings of a biased party. Why should that be any more believable than the comments from the cop?

Why should we believe either of them, for that matter? In short, why does this merit consideration in "the best of" category, at all.

We (nor I) are not picking on you, per se... We are going by the words attributed to you, however, and thus far you seem to agree with them.

Why do you think this qualifies as one of the more sound cases from a scientific viewpoint (or whatever it is that was your actual statement - please feel free to iterate whatever it was if you disagree)?

 

[fls]

Sorry, bad logic. I meant this:

The phenomena are dependent from psychological situations. Therefore they cannot be assigned to natural causes - earthquakes, electromagnetic causes and so on. The very many phenomena cannot be assigned to tricks either, because there is only one so far undetailed case of tricks. Therefore the only remaining cause is - psi. We know the natural causes, of course, but there is no help of them because observations of them are missing.

But you are simply saying the same thing twice. We did not see any tricks. We did not see any psi. Except that you conclude two dramatically different things from these observations. Because tricks were not seen, tricks were not present. Even though psi was not seen, psi is present. How does that even begin to make sense? If you do not have enough evidence to assign the cause to natural phenomena that we know exist and that we know can lead to the observations in question, then how can that be enough evidence to assign the cause to phenomena that we don't know to exist and have no idea whether they can lead to the observations in question? And even if we accepted your premise that psi exists and can lead to the observations in question, how do you know it was there in any way that is different from knowing whether tricks were there?

Linda

 

[Cuddles]

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.

This is something Randi often says, and he is no more correct than you are. Physicists, and scientists in general, are not a bunch of complete retards. Yes, they can be fooled, just as everyone else can, and yes, there are some who tend to woo. This does not mean that nonsensical claims that all physicists will try to explain card tricks by quantum tunneling have any basis in reality. Even assuming that a scientist does not know how a trick is done (and given that I know several scientists who are also magicians that is by no means certain), it's just plain stupid to claim that all scientists will automatically assume it's impossible. In fact, many tricks are based very much on maths, and so are more the domain of scientists than anyone else.

Randi seems to have a very low opinion of scientists, presumably because his role as a debunker has meant that most of his experience has been with those who have turned to woo. It's disappointing to see others repeating his silly, unsupported claims.

 

[fls]

Linda must have a deep conceptual confusion. There are plenty of of recorded observations of phenomena that have remained unexplained. But recorded observations of explanations are missing. Talking about given explanations is empty talk.

But explanation is what you are talking about. By wondering whether this case provides evidence for psi, you are asking whether psi would explain what was seen. We don't know whether psi would explain what was seen, because we don't really know anything about psi. All we really know about psi, so far, is that it seems to do the same things that trickery does.

Linda

 

[Lusikka]

But explanation is what you are talking about. By wondering whether this case provides evidence for psi, you are asking whether psi would explain what was seen. We don't know whether psi would explain what was seen, because we don't really know anything about psi. All we really know about psi, so far, is that it seems to do the same things that trickery does.

Linda

Yes, I agree if you meant that. Possible psi-effect is totally unreachable by our sense organs. Therefore I don't think psi as an 'explanation'. You can't explain anything with unknown effects.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Yes, I agree if you meant that. Possible psi-effect is totally unreachable by our sense organs. Therefore I don't think psi as an 'explanation'. You can't explain anything with unknown effects.

I'm a bit confused now? Do you still think that this case is, "for all practical purposes, a genuine case of psi-phenomenon", or have you changed your mind?

In our previous discussions you have described psi as "inexplicable phenomenon that is somehow connected to a human psyche".

If you haven't changed your mind, would you please direct us to your best evidence for the psi-phenomenon, or any paranormal activity, that took place in Rosenheim?

 

[Moufflon]

But you are simply saying the same thing twice. We did not see any tricks. We did not see any psi. Except that you conclude two dramatically different things from these observations. Because tricks were not seen, tricks were not present. Even though psi was not seen, psi is present. How does that even begin to make sense? If you do not have enough evidence to assign the cause to natural phenomena that we know exist and that we know can lead to the observations in question, then how can that be enough evidence to assign the cause to phenomena that we don't know to exist and have no idea whether they can lead to the observations in question? And even if we accepted your premise that psi exists and can lead to the observations in question, how do you know it was there in any way that is different from knowing whether tricks were there?

Linda

I think this is a very good point, extremely well made. It became even clearer to me with a little thought experiment.

Let's pretend for the moment that we know that psi exists, uncontroversially, like we know that earthquakes and trickery exist. Given the evidence in this case, then, which cause would we chose as an explanation? We can't. The evidence is so poor that we couldn't choose between (uncontroversial) alternatives, and we'd simply conclude that we don't know; we don't have enough facts of the matter. And that's with knowing that psi exists.

How much less plausible is it, then, to conclude that psi does exist from a case with insufficient evidence, when we don't even know that the cause exists at all!

It's a good example of the either/or fallacy, I think, made (for me) very clear in this instance. Thanks, Linda!

And, welcome to the forum, Lusikka.

 

[Lusikka]

I'm a bit confused now? Do you still think that this case is, "for all practical purposes, a genuine case of psi-phenomenon", or have you changed your mind?

Yes, I think Rosenheim is, for all practical purposes, a genuine case of psi-phenomenon. But that does not mean that Rosenheim would have been practically explained, because psi-process is unknown at the moment.

In our previous discussions you have described psi as "inexplicable phenomenon that is somehow connected to a human psyche".

Yes, you remember right, so I think. That is a very preliminary definition of psi. It leaves much room for interpretation in single cases, but purely physical natural phenomena are excluded.

If you haven't changed your mind, would you please direct us to your best evidence for the psi-phenomenon, or any paranormal activity, that took place in Rosenheim?

I don't like that kind of thinking. In my opinion it is the totality that must be held in mind. There is not a single case or event that could be definitely certainly a psi phenomenon. But taken together all the evidence is overwhelming. Even weaker cases add to the practical certainty.

 

[Lusikka]

But you are simply saying the same thing twice. We did not see any tricks. We did not see any psi. Except that you conclude two dramatically different things from these observations. Because tricks were not seen, tricks were not present. Even though psi was not seen, psi is present. How does that even begin to make sense? If you do not have enough evidence to assign the cause to natural phenomena that we know exist and that we know can lead to the observations in question, then how can that be enough evidence to assign the cause to phenomena that we don't know to exist and have no idea whether they can lead to the observations in question? And even if we accepted your premise that psi exists and can lead to the observations in question, how do you know it was there in any way that is different from knowing whether tricks were there?

Linda

Sorry, I missed this post and some others in between. There is so much to comment here now, that it takes some time to do it.

I think there is a certain difference between tricks and psi, although both processes are invisible. Tricks are invisible to laymen but not necessarily to magicians. Well, also psi-processes could perhaps be detectable to clairvoyants, but that is another question.

Tricks are sort of natural phenomena that can be explained in every step. Psi cannot be explained, because we don't know what processes there are happening in the background. If the controls in a parapsychological test are so tight that they make tricks impossible and still something inexplicable happens, then we have only psi left as an "explanation".

In Rosenheim there were so many unexplained phenomena and the controls and measurement results were such ones, that I think it is impossible to explain everything by tricks.

 

[fls]

Sorry, I missed this post and some others in between. There is so much to comment here now, that it takes some time to do it.

I think there is a certain difference between tricks and psi, although both processes are invisible. Tricks are invisible to laymen but not necessarily to magicians. Well, also psi-processes could perhaps be detectable to clairvoyants, but that is another question.

Tricks are sort of natural phenomena that can be explained in every step. Psi cannot be explained, because we don't know what processes there are happening in the background. If the controls in a parapsychological test are so tight that they make tricks impossible and still something inexplicable happens, then we have only psi left as an "explanation".

Why? When you can't explain something, how do you go about choosing between non-explanations? What if you went the other way around and attempted to find psi, but could not. Would that make trickery the explanation?

In Rosenheim there were so many unexplained phenomena and the controls and measurement results were such ones, that I think it is impossible to explain everything by tricks.

Then you must have more information than was presented here. Can you provide the details of this information for us?

Linda

 

[Moochie]

Lusikka, it seems to me that you are approaching this with an a priori belief in psi. I, for one, do not share this belief because I have seen no evidence of psi. While I won't rule out the possibility of all kinds of phenomena, my attitude is simply: I don't know. The case under discussion offers nothing to make me resile from that.


M.

 

[Lusikka]

Welcome to the forum!

Thank you and all the others who have greeted me! I appreciate the information digging work you have done.

If no professional trickster (magician) has been at the place, it is hard to detect trickery. Scientists are not qualified in that field. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Trickery not being detected does not mean there was no trickery.

I agree otherwise, except that magicians are often overrated. But I personally would absolutely call in a magician in a case where physical phenomena are possible and there is time enough with continuing phenomena.

That is the point where I want to see the evidence, because that is a very bold claim. What I read so far, is that the phenomena are dependent on physical situations (in other words: they only happened when the young lady was there).
Show us the evidence for your claim!

Often physical and psychological situations are difficult to separate from each other. I had in my mind a situation when an often swinging or rotating picture on the wall was video recorded. It did not move, but when the tape came to end and the recording stopped, then the picture moved. The stopping is physically a smaller event than psychologically. It was told that the recording succeeded later once. There is a "shyness" in psi-phenomena, not only for reasons that tricks are more difficult to do during tight controlling. So also in Rosenheim. Further there is the sheep/goat effect and experimenter effect in experimenting situations.

That does not follow. Not at all. You have one case of trickery and some unexplained phenomena. How would you see the probabilities that those other phenomena are tricks as well or that they are "paranormal", and why? I´m interested in your reasoning.
Why is there a need to cheat at all if there are paranormal things going on?

I am convinced that Annemarie or/and somebody else would not have been able to accomplish all the numerous and varied phenomena by tricks. A super-magician would have been needed to fool the police, electricity and telephone technicians, physicists, parapsychologists, the personal of the office and many guests there. But naturally there is no absolute certainty.

No. Not knowing a physical explanation does not equal that there is none, see above.

I agree in principle,

(Lusikka: We know the natural causes, of course, but there is no help of them because observations of them are missing.)

Sorry, I do not understand that one.

Summary: The person making the positive claim "there were Poltergeist activities" has the burden of proof. Missing physical explanations are not proof that it were paranormal events.
The evidence of a Poltergeist, god, spirit etc. being the cause of the phenomena has not been shown so far, it´s all speculation.
Your turn.

I mean that no natural causes were found to explain the phenomena. Therefore there is no help to know possible natural causes, when there was no evidence of their workings there. That does not mean that there were "supernatural" causes – the phenomena simply remained unexplained.

I have no "burden of proof" here. But possibly I have some interest to discuss some possibilities. You are free to have your opinions indefinitely.

 

[blutoski]

But you are simply saying the same thing twice. We did not see any tricks. We did not see any psi. Except that you conclude two dramatically different things from these observations. Because tricks were not seen, tricks were not present. Even though psi was not seen, psi is present. How does that even begin to make sense?

And there's no evidence it's pixies... therefore it must be pixies.

The point of a scientific investigation is to scrape away at least some of the infinite number of explanations.



Part of the problem is prior plausibility, but in the case of psi, prior plausibility is based on a circular argument called the 'fagot principle'.

The fagot principle works like this: any individual case where the origin of the phenomena is not specifically identified can be said to probably be psi because there are so many other cases just like this that are accepted to be psi. Not because this case is a clear-cut example of psi.

The part that confuses me is that some of the more sharp psi advocates understand this, but just don't seem to care.

I find that frustrating when doing 'best case' reviews that the justification for concluding psi in the one case is shamelessly dependent on the other cases being decreed to be true already. The best case for psi is held tenable because the worse cases are referred to as accepted.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Lusikka,
I think the request several of us are making is based on the assumption of the accuracy of the OP. e.g. That you feel that this case is the soundest, scientifically, in proving PSI. It seems that you're confirming that statement, but we keep asking if you've seen and can direct us to something other than the documents/video we've seen here.

The evidence seems to be in the form of confirmation by authority.

Statement of Person A:
I looked at this and watched things and could find no physical evidence of trickery.
Statement of Person B:
I know Person A. He's all sciencey and stuff and works at the Max Planck Institute, so must be reputable.

That, in and of itself, is not exactly what we'd term proof, nor even evidence. It's an undocumented opinion supported by someone's respect for the person stating their opinion.

 

[blutoski]

There is a "shyness" in psi-phenomena, not only for reasons that tricks are more difficult to do during tight controlling.

I think this is just repeating the claim that we feel is unsupported. Skeptics think the shyness effect is entirely due to phenomena having completely natural causes.

I am convinced that Annemarie or/and somebody else would not have been able to accomplish all the numerous and varied phenomena by tricks.

I think we appreciate that you are convinced. If you want us to share your conviction, please explain why you think this.

A super-magician would have been needed to fool the police, electricity and telephone technicians, physicists, parapsychologists, the personal of the office and many guests there. But naturally there is no absolute certainty.

Nah. My feeling is that these parties were not doing anything remotely like a paranormal investigation. They're all laypersons. A kid with a plan could certainly reproduce these effects.

I mean that no natural causes were found to explain the phenomena. Therefore there is no help to know possible natural causes, when there was no evidence of their workings there. That does not mean that there were "supernatural" causes – the phenomena simply remained unexplained.

Actually, this is incorrect. Firstly, at least one testimony alleged to have found apparatus.

Secondly, when attempting to elicit a best explanation, it's important to see how the data fits a model. The psi model is very challenging because there is no understanding of psi. The naturalistic model is much better understood and has certain predictions. It can be eliminated when the predictions fail, which is the purpose of attempting to do psi experiments with controls.

In this case, there was nothing demonstrated that distinctly excludes naturalistic explanations, so if nothing else, it remains on the table as one of the options.

It's just a question of what's most likely, given what we already understand.

 

[Lusikka]

Why? When you can't explain something, how do you go about choosing between non-explanations? What if you went the other way around and attempted to find psi, but could not. Would that make trickery the explanation?

This is becoming too philosophical for my simple-built brain. Hardly many members here are impressed if I say, that psi appears to have "fingerprints", some characteristic features. As is told in a book by Louisa E. Rhine (1981), The Invisible Picture.

Then you must have more information than was presented here. Can you provide the details of this information for us?

Yes, I have three main articles and some additional texts in my files. The two initial articles about the Rosenheim case are:

1. Hans Bender (1968): Der Rosenheimer Spuk – Ein Fall spontaner Psykokinese. (Ein vorläufiger Bericht). Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der Psychologie Vol. 11 s.104-112.

2. F. Karger und G. Zicha (1968): Physikalische Untersuchung des Spukfalles in Rosenheim. Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der Psychologie Vol. 11 s.113-131.

The second article is here in this thread in its totality, sent as photos by Kuko 4000. I hope many members have read and understood it.

In the third article there is additional later material:
Hans Bender (1973): "Spuk" als wissenschaftliche Grenzfrage. In the book Verborgene Wirklichkeit. Walter-Verlag, Olten und Freiburg im Breisgau, pp. 45-52.

The same article is in English and in expanded form here:
H. Bender (1969): New Developments in Poltergeist Research, in: Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association, Number 6, 1969. 81-102.