The Rosenheim Case

[Lusikka]

I'm sure you've heard of the Alpha Project.

You know -- where the scientists at Washington University in St. Louis acted like gullible, dribbling idiots?

I bet that you have read only the Randi/Gardner version of the case. I have also read the parapsychologists' version of it. Differed rather much. But embarrassing case for parapsychology, anyhow.

 

[Sherman Bay]

I bet that you have read only the Randi/Gardner version of the case. I have also read the parapsychologists' version of it. Differed rather much. But embarrassing case for parapsychology, anyhow.

You mean there's another version where the researchers WEREN'T fooled, but uncovered REAL evidence of the paranormal when confronted with magicians who were doing parlor tricks?

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I received two mails from Dr. Karger just some minutes ago. The first one was text, I´ll just copy it here and try to translate the first paragraph since it was written in German:

Thanks for the pdf. Auch Herzlichen Dank an Dr. Karger.

I have been looking for some other sources on the case. A suitably close library lists mosts of the relevant books as available. I think me and my digital cam will manage a visit some time next week.
I noticed that the GWUP archive charges money for copies from books so maybe there's not much to hope from there.

I've also looked into the online archives of a few newspapers and magazines. I found a few mildly interesting articles but nothing that really helps.
I'll post the links later. I'll churn out a few posts in the meantime.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Btw. has anyone found contact details or more info about Annemarie or Gerhard Zicha? I'd like to know what they're doing these days and how they understand and view the case today. Maybe Mr. Karger can help here?

Annemarie Schaberl/Schneider was interviewed for one of those vids posted earlier.
At the end of the clip:
Transcrption (not fully acounting for dialect):
"Ich bin ein ganz ein normaler Mensch mit einem normalen Hirn, ausgeprägten Hirn, der ganz normal denken kann. Also, ich hab' keine Kräfte, glauben's mir's. Es muss irgendwas ander's g'wesen sein."
Translation:
"I am a completely normal person with a normal brain, a normally developped brain, who can think normally. Well, I have no powers, believe me. It must have been something different."

It should be taken into account that there's a large bill still waiting for anyone taking responsibility for the poltergeist events. If anyone would want to embark on a larger project, it might be promising to get the companies involved to waive their demands and ask Annemarie again. The cost of the investigation and all must, after all, have been written off long since so I figure that it would be possible to persuade the companies.
Of course, if she confessed then, believers would argue, and not entirely without justification, that this would amount to a bribe.

A bit of searching on G. Zicha found me this:
www dot umfis dot de/show_profile.php?langid=de&opcode=any&tbereich=no&fbereich=no&suchbegriffe=Gerhard+Zicha+&keyword=no&bundesland=no&ihk=no&action=query&sort=sorter&si=48&mi=59

I think it's the same man.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Your explanations are naturally good, but you have a serious problem here. How could you have accomplished everything unnoticed by the staff, police, several investigators and so on.

According to Schäfer, it wasn't.

There's a major difference in how, let's call'em, accepters and doubters treat such revelations. I came across this article by Walter von Lucadou who's big in Germany as a parapsychologist.
"Meistens wird in dieser Phase die spukauslösende Person bei Manipulationen oder Betrug ertappt. Bender pflegte im persönlichen Gespräch darauf hinzuweisen, dass es in dieser Phase aufgrund seiner Erfahrung praktisch in allen Fällen zu Manipulationen komme oder diese nicht mehr mit Sicherheit ausgeschlossen werden können, weil die Phänomene nur noch selten oder in unübersichtlichen Situationen bzw. in unmittelbarer Umgebung der auslösenden Person auftreten."
"Most of the time, the spook-causing person is caught performing manipulations or fraud during this phase [of intense scrutiny]. Bender would usually point out in personal talks that, according to his experience, there would be practically always manipulations in this phase or that those could no longer be ruled out with certainty because the phenomena happened only rarely anymore or in uncontrollable situations or in close proximity to the causing person."
http://degufo.alien.de/df/40/p2.php

To me this is one of the biggest problems accepting parapsychological findings. Things that would otherwise be regarded as sure signs that a phenomenon was an artefact or fraud are accepted as outward signs of psi.

I think "Project Alpha" serves as a proof of principle of what trickery can achieve. Although it could be convincingly argued that at least Banachek indeed qualifies as a "super-magician".
Still, the history of psychic research is full of cases where eminent scientists were fooled by trickery by amateurs and/or children and/or animals (clever Hans).

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I bet that you have read only the Randi/Gardner version of the case. I have also read the parapsychologists' version of it. Differed rather much. But embarrassing case for parapsychology, anyhow.

Are you referring to Michael A. Thalbourne's account?
As far as I recall it was not so much different fact-wise but rather spin-wise.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

In the case of dueling explanations, does not the fact that the normal has been demonstrated to exist give it an edge?

Linda

That would be Occam's Razor. Ironically Occam died from the plague quite close to Rosenheim (in Munich).

It's often given as: All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.
I don't like that version because simple is vague. I prefer "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". In this case it is not clear that psi as an entity is necessary.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Thanks GGM for all your effort

Btw. I'm confident that Linda is very well aware of the Occam's Razor, I assume she is just trying to spell it clearly for Lusikka.

 

[fls]

That would be Occam's Razor. Ironically Occam died from the plague quite close to Rosenheim (in Munich).

It's often given as: All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.
I don't like that version because simple is vague. I prefer "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". In this case it is not clear that psi as an entity is necessary.

A man after my own heart. I have made the same complaint.

Linda

 

[fls]

Thanks GGM for all your effort

Btw. I'm confident that Linda is very well aware of the Occam's Razor, I assume she is just trying to spell it clearly for Lusikka.

I suspect GnaGnaMan was just doing the same thing.

Linda

 

[Lusikka]

The "Project Alpha" has been mentioned here as an example showing what kind of idiots scientists can be regarding tricks.

I'm sure you've heard of the Alpha Project.

You know -- where the scientists at Washington University in St. Louis acted like gullible, dribbling idiots?

I think "Project Alpha" serves as a proof of principle of what trickery can achieve.

There only is one problem here -- you say "proof" and you have read only the Randi/Gardner/other_skeptics versions of the Alpha case. I happened to find a more moderate version here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n1_v59/ai_17935540
[A book review by J. McClenon: How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking For A New Age by Theodore Schick, Jr., and Lewis Vaughn.]

They review the "Project Alpha" case as a "dramatic demonstration of the need for magicians in the psi lab" (p. 229). Using Terence Hines's (1988) Pseudoscience and the Paranormal as their reference, they claim that the McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research in St. Louis was created with a $5,000,000 grant, making it "probably the best funded psychical laboratory in the world". They state that two young magicians, under the direction of James Randi, went to the lab seeking to fool the parapsychologists:

"Shaw and Edwards easily convinced the research staff at the McDonnell Laboratory that they had genuine psychic powers . . . . They rarely failed to achieve "psychic" feats . . . . Randi reports in detail on the simple ways in which these deceptions were carried out . . . . The controls that were placed on Shaw and Edwards were totally inadequate to prevent their use of trickery. Even when videotapes of their feats showed fairly clearly, to anyone watching them carefully, how the trick had been done, the enthusiastic laboratory staff failed to catch on." (p. 229)

I had the opportunity to interview Shaw, Edwards, Randi, and all the researchers at the McDonnell Laboratory while Project Alpha was in progress. How to Think About Weird Things illustrates how scholars depending on secondary sources can go astray. The McDonnell Laboratory was started with a $500,000 grant (not $5,000,000). Lab researchers attempted to capture the performances of Shaw and Edwards on camera and presented their preliminary findings at the Parapsychological Association meetings in 1981 for evaluation and advice. They and the other parapsychologists I interviewed were aware that their controls were not adequate. When they tightened their controls during later experiments, Shaw and Edwards were unable to produce anomalous effects. As a consequence, the researchers ended their experiments with them. The authors' text reflects James Randi's false portrayal of Project Alpha; this case actually illustrates an instance in which skillful magicians caused investigators to waste time and money investigating false leads. For a more complete discussion of Project Alpha, see Truzzi (1987).

Perhaps skeptics are gullible when reading skeptical articles? Not interested what the other side has to say?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The "Project Alpha" has been mentioned here as an example showing what kind of idiots scientists can be regarding tricks.

There only is one problem here -- you say "proof" and you have read only the Randi/Gardner/other_skeptics versions of the Alpha case. I happened to find a more moderate version here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n1_v59/ai_17935540
[A book review by J. McClenon: How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking For A New Age by Theodore Schick, Jr., and Lewis Vaughn.]

They and the other parapsychologists I interviewed were aware that their controls were not adequate. When they tightened their controls during later experiments,

Perhaps skeptics are gullible when reading skeptical articles? Not interested what the other side has to say?

Why on earth start off with weak controls and then strengthen them? What a waste of time.

 

[fls]

I found this account of the Alpha Project.

http://www.aiprinc.org/para-c05_Thalbourne_1995.pdf

If you can look past all the special pleading, it makes for interesting reading.

The salient point is uncontested, though. One cannot draw conclusions from any events performed under less than rigorously controlled environments. This essentially negates the possibility that the Rosenheim Case can serve as evidence of psi.

Linda

 

[Lusikka]

I think there is a need to talk a little about evidence.

Here has been required evidence from me. I have presented information from original scientific reports about the Rosenheim case, but everybody says that is not evidence at all. I have told what those people have written who have observed the pictures on the wall swing and fall and have even seen the video about the swinging picture. But that is not evidence because I have not seen the swinging-picture video myself.

What would be evidence, then? I have also been told that unexplained and well documented occurrences are not evidence for psi-phenomena. What are they evidence for, then?

And yet, even though the magician in the scene found a string hanging from the ceiling, and, even though the criminologist in the scene reported one of his officers seeing Annemarie (the central character) pushing a lamp when she thought no one was looking - you still are, by your own words, absolutely convinced that this is a genuine case of paranormal / psi activity.

So, on the other hand, we have reports of suspicious strings attached in the ceiling and clear physical action (magician & police), and on the other hand we have reports of things moving and happening with no apparent physical cause (parapsychologist, physicists, phone company workers & some of the law firm workers).

A magician has seen a string hanging from the ceiling -- that is a report and evidence? As a matter of fact, I and nobody else have told that here and separately to Kuko 4000. Now my words are finally evidence! And the criminologist then, do you have his report in your files as evidence? What clear physical action has the magician observed?

So the "sealed" mechanical chart recorder showed wild fluctuations, including loops, in the power but the "Oscilloscope did not confirm the chart peaks and measurements". This suggests to me that someone was giving the chart recorder a good mechanical thump when no one was looking. Is there any indication that it was under observation at all times?

There are some spikes forming in the chart recorder in the following video in Spanish. Where do you see evidence of a trick or manipulation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeWNvooDRQU&NR=1

The construction of the chart recorder was such that it was possible only to move the pen up and down by force without damage to the recorder. Therefore the loops must have been formed by moving the paper.

To sum up, at one hand all rumors explaining possible psi-phenomena are reports and evidence and at the other hand original reports written by parapsychologists are not evidence? The skeptics do not have any need to present evidence to debunk a case because only a faintest possibility and most far-fetched suspicion is enough to dismiss a case.

 

[Lusikka]

Why on earth start off with weak controls and then strengthen them? What a waste of time.

You missed my point that was about reliability of skeptical literature and how skeptics rely on it. I had no aim to defend parapsychology and parapsychologists.

 

[fls]

I think there is a need to talk a little about evidence.

Here has been required evidence from me. I have presented information from original scientific reports about the Rosenheim case, but everybody says that is not evidence at all.

This is because the vast majority (if not all?) of the events described in the report occurred under uncontrolled conditions. It is not even clear that the handful of events that occurred in the presence of the investigators were under rigorously controlled conditions. Even if they did, they were not replicable.

I have told what those people have written who have observed the pictures on the wall swing and fall and have even seen the video about the swinging picture. But that is not evidence because I have not seen the swinging-picture video myself.

It's not evidence because you can't rule out alternative methods just from watching a video.

What would be evidence, then? I have also been told that unexplained and well documented occurrences are not evidence for psi-phenomena. What are they evidence for, then?

They may be evidence of an anomaly. But clearly anomalies are not evidence of psi, since most anomalies that have been documented have become evidence for non-psi phenomena (the Mickelson-Morley experiments on the speed of light, for example).

A magician has seen a string hanging from the ceiling -- that is a report and evidence? As a matter of fact, I and nobody else have told that here and separately to Kuko 4000. Now my words are finally evidence! And the criminologist then, do you have his report in your files as evidence? What clear physical action has the magician observed?

It's not evidence of trickery. It is merely sufficient to cast doubt on the likelihood that trickery was ruled-out.

There are some spikes forming in the chart recorder in the following video in Spanish. Where do you see evidence of a trick or manipulation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeWNvooDRQU&NR=1

I suspect that is a re-enactment. But even so, how do I know it wasn't simply recording something that it was designed to record?

The construction of the chart recorder was such that it was possible only to move the pen up and down by force without damage to the recorder. Therefore the loops must have been formed by moving the paper.

This doesn't make sense. The video simply shows the pen moving back and forth, not movement of the paper.

To sum up, at one hand all rumors explaining possible psi-phenomena are reports and evidence and at the other hand original reports written by parapsychologists are not evidence? The skeptics do not have any need to present evidence to debunk a case because only a faintest possibility and most far-fetched suspicion is enough to dismiss a case.

Even a far-fetched suspicion is more likely than something which has never been demonstrated to exist.

Linda

 

[fls]

You missed my point that was about reliability of skeptical literature and how skeptics rely on it. I had no aim to defend parapsychology and parapsychologists.

If it makes you feel any better, I personally wouldn't rely on something that Randi wrote.

Linda

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You missed my point that was about reliability of skeptical literature and how skeptics rely on it. I had no aim to defend parapsychology and parapsychologists.

I did not miss your point. I was poking fun at the idea that the nasty skeptics wasted the valuable time of the psyresearchers.

I don't rely on skeptical literature in any great sense. I tend to go with "mainstream science". When the psyresearchers have convinced its members, I may give some credence to the field.

 

[Lusikka]

This is because the vast majority (if not all?) of the events described in the report occurred under uncontrolled conditions. It is not even clear that the handful of events that occurred in the presence of the investigators were under rigorously controlled conditions. Even if they did, they were not replicable.

"Handful of events" and "not replicable"? How on eart do you know all that? What are your refereces?

It's not evidence because you can't rule out alternative methods just from watching a video.

Well, there is no evidence without a video and video is no evidence?

They may be evidence of an anomaly. But clearly anomalies are not evidence of psi, since most anomalies that have been documented have become evidence for non-psi phenomena (the Mickelson-Morley experiments on the speed of light, for example).

Why is it not possible that an anomaly could be evidence of psi? Do you not understand that your principles are not falsifiable?

I suspect that is a re-enactment. But even so, how do I know it wasn't simply recording something that it was designed to record?

This doesn't make sense. The video simply shows the pen moving back and forth, not movement of the paper.

It seems that you have not understood the technical details. There was only evidence of mechanical effects.

 

[blutoski]

There only is one problem here -- you say "proof" and you have read only the Randi/Gardner/other_skeptics versions of the Alpha case. I happened to find a more moderate version here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n1_v59/ai_17935540
[A book review by J. McClenon: How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking For A New Age by Theodore Schick, Jr., and Lewis Vaughn.]



Perhaps skeptics are gullible when reading skeptical articles? Not interested what the other side has to say?

There is no 'version' of the case: its documentation is not a matter of opinion. My 1995 edition of How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking For A New Age says that the McDonnell grant is $500k. It's possible that there was a typo in McClenon's copy. I am unaware of any skeptic who has said anything other than the lab's McDonnell funding being $500k, and that includes James Randi and Martin Gardner. I consider the skeptics' information accurate in this regard, and I would challenge you to locate such claims by these authors if you are going to generalize their version as erroneous in this detail.

Secondly, it is true that the McDonnell lab tightened their controls in 1981. Reason: their presentation to the Parapsychological Association was met with harsh criticism (let's be frank: it was met with outright laughter) from their peers, and they rightly predicted that there was no chance of peer-reviewed publication with their current setup. They changed protocols under protest, not because they thought they were appropriate (they wrote letters to the Parapsychological Association and to Martin Gardner in Scientific American saying that requests for tighter protocols were closed-minded).

These new protocols produced no positive results, so the experiments were terminated. This is exactly what skeptic renditions of events report, so I don't know why McClenon would think that repeating this fact is any sort of 'gotcha'. I can't see how this vindicates them in any way: the skeptics' claims that - a) the lab was focussed on positive results instead of investigation and b) the original protocols were deficient - are supported by their response to negative results.

The take-away learning from Project Alpha is that paranormal investigations require the assistance of elite magicians (Randi refers to them as "magicians' magicians"), and that investigations that exclude such participants are not very reliable. I don't see anything in McClenon's critique (of one book) that refutes this conclusion.