• 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 said:
Snapped it from Wiki, forgot to add the link, sorry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltergeist
Click to expand...

Thanks.... I have no idea why Google didn't get me the link directly. I even put in "& poltergeist" in one search. But, then again, although my Google Fu is notably poor, I'm also on Google HK, and the alternative is Google Singapore, which isn't much better.

But - even with several links to the story in other sub-sections of Wiki, it's all a series of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours link-backs to the same sources. (The Wiki article actually links back to the Geller bio that I mentioned, but doesn't credit it with the whole section they lifted.)

I think these guys just copy each other's work and embroider. Check out the following (also linked from that main Wiki article). The site actually lifted it (with permission) from a Wallechinsky and Wallace book.

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/biography-of-electric-psychokinetic-anne-marie-sch-part-1.htm

Similar, but with a little more fluff thrown in. Like I said, since almost nothing is documented, they all add a little something to the tale.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I think these guys just copy each other's work and embroider. Check out the following (also linked from that main Wiki article). The site actually lifted it (with permission) from a Wallechinsky and Wallace book.

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/biography-of-electric-psychokinetic-anne-marie-sch-part-1.htm

Similar, but with a little more fluff thrown in. Like I said, since almost nothing is documented, they all add a little something to the tale.
Click to expand...


Foolme, this is the same link I added to my post in the previous page, thanks anyway!
 
Kuko 4000 said:
Thanks for the digging Georg!
Click to expand...

Foolmewunz said:
@Georg.... Nice work.
Click to expand...


You´re welcome. I profit very often from smart persons here on this forum that "waste" their time to teach science illiterates like myself a thing or two.
Therefore I feel sort of obliged to give a little bit back to the forum when I´m able to. I love this place :).

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.
Click to expand...


Yep. I was very much reminded of the science guys that tested Geller some decades ago (Stanford?). Karger seems to additionally have some "need" for woo in his life. Angels, reincarnation, creation? Come on.......
And in his case, I would not necessarily assume that he is promoting that BS to fleece the gullible, after my mini-research, I´d say he really means it. I might be wrong though.
 
sophia8 said:
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?
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.
Click to expand...

Poppycock. There is no evidence. Evidently you haven't seen many special effects masters at work.


M.


ETA: there is at least one Derren Brown video extant in which he frightens the bejezus out of unsuspecting neophytes, a deed not difficult to accomplish given the gullibility and susceptibility to all things "spooky" of large swathes of the general population.

I'd invite you to spend a night in a designated "haunted house" with a bunch of people predisposed to believe in all things spooky. You'll have fun -- unless you're a believer yourself. And get your guests to sign a legally binding waiver beforehand, as you'll quite possibly need it.

"Things that go 'bump' in the night
Should not really give one a fright.
It's the hole in each ear
That lets in the fear,
That, and the absence of light!"

Spike Milligan
 
Last edited:
Limbo said:
Some? Sure. Here is a list links to several papers on micro-PK.

Research on Micro-Psychokinesis
Click to expand...

I took the time to look over the very first study on that list. It was very enlightening...and humorous. It purported to be a meta-analysis of 85 (or 73 - they couldn't quite make up their minds) studies of "intention" on random number generators. (If you listen very carefully you will hear the entire forum groaning at that statement.) The conclusion of the authors was that they could show a significant result if they were allowed to pick and choose which studies they included and which they excluded from the analysis. If they were made to include every available published study, no effect could be shown.

I could look at the other "studies" listed on that page, but really, we've been over this topic dozens of time on this forum, and there is no compelling evidence that the effect you call "micro PK' actually exists.


You really don't see how micro-PK is supporting evidence for RSPK? o.0
Click to expand...


I really don't see how a phenomenon that cannot be shown to exist can be called "supporting evidence" for anything.
 
Gr8wight said:
I really don't see how a phenomenon that cannot be shown to exist can be called "supporting evidence" for anything.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...
 
Limbo, any comments on Gr8wight's reply to the link you posted?
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
We have nothing beyond a claim of witnessing, which can make thinks sound more than they really were. For example were picture REALLY rotating the whole 360 or only swivelling to a great angle then released rotating the other way around ? Without visual evidence we are left conjecturing on how it was done. But big angle picture rotating and lamp swivelling could certainly be done with thin enough cable. Then it all hinge on how much investigation was done. Because funnily when I try to look in german wiki at rosenheim page, you find only the city. I will try to look later on google for more, but if there are only written witness report it is USELESS.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
sophia8 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Firstly Heavy looking means NOTHING. We had a massive wood overhead light at home. It was very easily swinging. Show us the film (link it), and I bet simple explanation with cable would be enough.
 
Sophia8: I'm not sure what you want an alternate explanation for. If it's the two videos that Kuko linked, then the swinging chandelier requires no explanation at all.

My German is incredibly rusty, so I undoubtedly missed a lot, but the video of the swinging chandelier has these two problems:

1. It appears to be an after-the-fact recreation (note that all other original video is stationary; the video of the chandelier is hand held and zooms in; zooming is a capability not demonstrated elsewhere)

2. There is no view of the whole chandlier or room--just a partial shot quickly zooming in.

Criticism of the rotating picture is different but just as damning: the video conveniently "statics out" during the entire rotation. What we see is a before and after picture, separated by unviewable distortions on screen.
 
Aepervius said:
Firstly Heavy looking means NOTHING. We had a massive wood overhead light at home. It was very easily swinging. Show us the film (link it), and I bet simple explanation with cable would be enough.
Click to expand...
Being heavy would help, actually. It wouldn't need much to get it started, after which it would oscillate impressively on its own longer than a lightweight chandelier.
 
Are those the videos??? I thought these were poor reports when I first looked at them. There's absolutely NOTHING in those videos to even talk about debunking.

As Garette mentioned, there's no way their stationary camera got that shot of the swinging chandelier. And all the other stuff? It's aftermath with someone in a suit saying that's what really happened.

If those are the shots that people are saying represent scientific proof, then I'm going to agree with Kuko's protaganist.... This is the best they've got, and it's like all the other bestest proofs... so weak as to be laughable.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
Are those the videos???
Click to expand...


Those are the vids that my new paranomal buddy gave me as part of his sources. I was astounded as well, this can't be the best they can provide!? But as it stands, it is. If anyone knows about any other vids documenting this case, let me know. The guy I'm talking about really is one of the most respected paranormal guys, or should I say, researchers, in Finland. Afaik, his speciality is parapsychology.
 
Last edited:
Limbo said:
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.
Click to expand...


Is that when someone has a bad feeling about something and then it comes true? How do you think this will be proven?
 
Kuko 4000 said:
Limbo, any comments on Gr8wight's reply to the link you posted?
Click to expand...


He looked at the the very first study on that list:

Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention with Random Number Generators. A Meta-Analysis

In it:

4.1.10.6 Conclusion

"The statistical significance of the overall database provides no directive as to whether the phenomenon is genuine or not. The difference between the two statistical models used (FEM and REM), and the dependency of the results on three very large studies, demonstrates the difficulties regarding these data. If the striking heterogeneity and the small-study effect are taken into account, one must ask whether the findings are artifactual or whether all these findings are indicative of a genuine effect."

I agree with that. One must ask.
 
Starrman said:
Is that when someone has a bad feeling about something and then it comes true?
Click to expand...


Yes, more or less. It's a reaction to future emotions.


How do you think this will be proven?
Click to expand...


Through easily replicable experiments. For instance:

Understanding the Unconscious Brain: Evidence for Non-Linear Information Processing

Abstract

Neuroimaging techniques have made breakthroughs in the field of conscious emotional processing possible. However, people process most emotional information at an unconscious level and this influences our daily life (Van den Noort, 2003). These unconscious processes still remain a great mystery. What are the limits of unconscious information processing? Neuroimaging- and skin conductance studies will be discussed to answer this question.

[...]

Interestingly, Radin (1997) found that the baseline level of skin conductance preceding highly emotional stimuli was higher than the baseline level preceding calm stimuli. He used a computer to randomly select and present target photos from a pool of digitized photographs. In this experiment, as discussed before, the calm pictures included pastoral scenes and neutral household objects, and the emotional pictures included erotic and violent scenes. In these prestimulus studies, the presentation of emotional and neutral stimuli was randomized with replacement so that each trial was completely independent of the previous ones. Four different experiments were conducted in which 31 participants were involved and 1060 target photos were presented.

The results, as can be seen in Figure 1, showed an expecting orienting response after the target photo was displayed. Moreover, there was a significant prestimulus effect that peaked with a four standard error difference in physiological measures between extreme and calm targets, one second before the target photo was displayed.

[...]

The analysis of the prestimulus phase showed a significant prestimulus effect that was widely distributed over many brain regions, including hippocampus, pallidus, amygdala, and caudate nucleus. Most brain regions did not show striking differences in anticipation before emotional and neutral stimuli. However, larger anticipatory activation preceding emotional stimuli compared to neutral stimuli was found in the right amygdala and in the caudate nucleus. For the male participants, as can be seen in Figure 2, this appeared before the erotic stimuli while for the female both erotic and violent stimuli produced this prestimulus effect (Van den Noort, 2003).

[...]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom