• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Rosenheim Case

Kuko 4000

Graduate Poster
Kuko 4000
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
1,586
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. I asked him to tell me about the most scientifically convincing paranormal case that he knows, and he chose the strange events that happened in a law firm in Rosenheim, Germany.

Wikipedia:

Rosenheim (1967)
Dr. Friedbert Karger was one of two physicists from the Max Planck Institute who helped to investigate perhaps the most validated poltergeist case in recorded history. Annemarie Schneider, a 19-year-old secretary in a law firm in Rosenheim (a small town in southern Germany) was seemingly the unwitting cause of much chaos in the firm, including disruption of electricity and telephone lines, the rotation of a picture, swinging lamps which were captured on video (which was one of the first times any poltergeist activity has been captured on film), and strange sounds that sounded electrical in origin were recorded. Fraud was not proven despite intensive investigation by the physicists, journalists, and the police. The effects moved with the young woman when she changed jobs until they finally faded out.

In the Rosenheim case of 1967 [5], The Rosenheim Poltergeist (1967). [3] (German and most extensive). [4] [5] Friedbert Karger's whole perspective on physics changed after investigating the events. "These experiments were really a challenge to physics," Karger says today. "What we saw in the Rosenheim case could be 100 per cent shown not to be explainable by known physics." [6]. The phenomena were witnessed by Hans Bender, the police force, the CID, reporters, and the physicists. The claims were aired in a documentary in 1975 in a series called "Leap in the Dark."
Click to expand...


Anyone have any further details on this, or thoughts? And about the supposedly peer reviewed full paper that Karger and Zicha published?
 
Last edited:
Well... From the people present, there were only physicist, journalist, police force. No conjuror. That might well explain why it stayed the "best case" for poltergeist.
 
I was involved in a "poltergeist" event once, many years ago. My thoughts are that poltergeists aren't really poltergeists. That is to say, they aren't supernatural entities that like to run around causing trouble.

They are instances of recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis (RSPK).

"Poltergeists (from the German, "noisy ghosts") usually manifest as loud sounds, strange electrical effects, and the unexplained movement of objects. At one time, these phenomena were thought to be due to ghosts, but after decades of investigations by researchers, notably by William G. Roll, the evidence now suggests that poltergeist effects are actually caused by the living. The MMI itself may be produced by one or more individuals, often (but not always) troubled adolescents.

The term "RSPK," meaning "Recurrent Spontaneous PK," was coined to describe this concept. The events themselves--like all forms of spontaneous MMI--are intrinsically meaningful and can be understood much in the same way as a dream metaphor to explain the underlying psychological issues that triggered the phenomena. Investigations are therefore performed in the same manner as would a newspaper reporter, looking at the who, what, when, where, and why. Some parapsychologists believe that poltergeist activity are a way of relieving stress through the physical expression of unconscious feelings."

http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file3.html#24
 
Last edited:
The effects moved with the young woman when she changed jobs until theyshe finally faded out. got tired of the game.
 
Moochie said:
Poppycock. All of it.

M.
Click to expand...
Rather than waste bandwidth with a totally useless post, maybe you could contribute to the discussion in hand? For instance, what's your guess at how she achieved the following effects?
disruption of electricity and telephone lines, the rotation of a picture, swinging lamps which were captured on video (which was one of the first times any poltergeist activity has been captured on film), and strange sounds that sounded electrical in origin
Click to expand...
I do remember seeing the film many years ago, and couldn't see how anybody could make the heavy overhead corridor lights swing so vigorously. Though I don't believe it was achieved by paranormal means, I'd like somebody to offer an explanation.
 
Last edited:
sophia8 said:
Though I don't believe it was achieved by paranormal means, I'd like somebody to offer an explanation.
Click to expand...


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.

"Perinormal phenomena describes unknown forces which at first appear to be paranormal and later are verified scientifically. The name is derived from the Greek "peri", meaning "in the vicinity of"."

http://www.123exp-history.com/t/03764533568/
 
Limbo said:
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.

"Perinormal phenomena describes unknown forces which at first appear to be paranormal and later are verified scientifically. The name is derived from the Greek "peri", meaning "in the vicinity of"."

http://www.123exp-history.com/t/03764533568/
Click to expand...

Do you have one of those?
 
Limbo said:
Ok. You said, "he has an explanation, he just has nothing to support it."

Key word being "nothing".

So, if I find "something" to support it...I win the internet? ;)
Click to expand...

The key, when providing an alternate explanation, is for that alternate explanation to have already been established. Else we just have a battle between invisible pink unicorns and garage-dwelling dragons.

Linda
 
Fraud was not proven despite intensive investigation by the physicists, journalists, and the police.

I always wonder about these types of statements.
By whose standards are these "investigations" "intensive"?
Reminds me of the World of Bigfoot where such claims are bandied about and then one finds that there has been no real investigation done at all.
 
fls said:
The key, when providing an alternate explanation, is for that alternate explanation to have already been established. Else we just have a battle between invisible pink unicorns and garage-dwelling dragons.

Linda
Click to expand...


You mean established in contemporary society and the scientific establishment?
 
Limbo said:
You mean established in contemporary society and the scientific establishment?
Click to expand...

"Those things which are confirmed to such a degree that it would be unreasonable to withhold one's provisional consent."

Linda
 
fls said:
"Those things which are confirmed to such a degree that it would be unreasonable to withhold one's provisional consent."

Linda
Click to expand...


Confirmed to who? The scientific establishment? The individual? Moses?
 
lionking said:
Stop asking rhetorical questions. This adds nothing.
Click to expand...


No I just think it's necessary. I can offer an explanation which is "confirmed to such a degree" by science.

Strictly speaking. Ideas about acceptable "degree" vary.

That's the reason it's 'perinormal' and not 'paranormal'.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom