The Rosenheim Case

[Gord_in_Toronto]

My avatar is a strong steel dessert spoon bent by a 9-year old boy in 1974. He held the bowl of the spoon with left hand and rubbed lightly the bend area between thumb and index finger of the right hand. The bending was accomplished in about ten minutes by holding the spoon all the time over a table surface, totally well visible for five adults standing around the sitting boy. "Lusikka" is Finnish and means spoon.

So you knew someone, who, as a child, possessed the same amazing abilities as Uri Geller? Wow! Just wow!

 

[Lusikka]

So you knew someone, who, as a child, possessed the same amazing abilities as Uri Geller? Wow! Just wow!

I don't know what you actually mean, but thanks anyway for your comment. This boy was not the only one, I experimented also with a boy 8 years old, who was still "stronger". Thin high-speed steel strip was bent in sight, directly without springing effect (bending and bouncing back). He did not rub at all, only held the pieces between his small hands.

 

[Kuko 4000]

I'm trying to be as clear as possible.

Yes, I understand that point.

Good.

My opinion has not changed here, because for the first I know the totality of Rosenheim case much better than you here and for the second I know much more about the background material concerning poltergeist phenomena.

Your opinion about the Rosenheim case has not changed, ok.

You know more about the Rosenheim case than I do. Yes, I agree.

You also know much more about the background material concerning poltergeist phenomena. Yes, I agree.

There is really in Rosenheim plenty of evidence of different kinds of phenomena that have remained unexplained, although there were many kinds of expert investigators working as a team. There are also physical records of the phenomena.

So far I've seen only very weak evidence.

From my point of view, the strongest (even among weak, there is the strongest) evidence you have presented so far is the chart recorder.

To review, would you please describe the IMPORTANT details as well as you possibly can?

I want you to convince me that this is good evidence.

Your only "explanation" is tricks without practically no evidence supporting that opinion.

No.

Going by the information you have provided, there is just no way of knowing what really happened. The information is too vague and limited.

It could be trickery, it could be something else, it could also be psi.

I have pointed out that there is not enough information available to rule out natural causes such as trickery.

From what we know of the world, psi is the least likely explanation.

Occam's razor.
http://skepdic.com/occam.html

With so little info, it would be foolish to offer any claims of what really happened, let alone extraordinary claims.

You have very little background to try to grasp my opinions. Therefore you are urged to have only guesses without evidence. It must be a straw man when you let everybody understand that I am a gullible believer.

I have very little background to try to grasp your opinions. True.

I base my personal opinion of you and the paranormal only on your personal views on paranormal that you have shared with me. They are not guesses, I have them all stored in my files.

Of all things paranormal, Rosenheim is the one that you have shared with me the most.

In this thread, I have presented all the evidence regarding the Rosenheim case that you have provided to me.

I quoted, word for word, what you thought of this case. Afaik, this is still accurate.

I think the evidence you have provided is weak. So do most of the others in this thread.

The main idea of this forum is to let the evidence speak for itself. If the evidence is correctly presented, the other members do not need my opinion to form their own opinion.

So, I feel that I have not misrepresented your case. If you disagree, please show me where, and I will apologize and try to correct the mistake.

That quote reveals two points that are a result of your reading only skeptical sources – uncritically – and discussing only with New Agers outside the skeptical context:
1. You did not understand my question. I asked just only for such papers where parapsychologists think they have succeeded to get significant test results, and skeptics have been able to show – based on evidence and not only on suspicion – that the test subjects have used tricks. Because you said the tricks are so common in the tests.

I think the problem here comes from you not understanding what I meant originally. This is what really happened, nothing more, nothing less:

My view is that in testing of the paranormal (where magic tricks and other distractions have always been in heavy use), proper magicians will save a lot of time and effort from the proper scientists simply because the proper magicians can immediately recognize tricks, or variations of the tricks, in question. I also think that this saves enough time and effort to include a magician in the roster.

If the use has been heavy, then you can certainly give at least five papers where tricks and other distractions have been used and skeptics have disclosed it.

I don't know about papers, but off the top of my head, big or familiar faces who are clearly using tricks and other distractions in the field of parapsychology (ranging from contacting spirits, to healing and psychokinesis):

Uri Geller
Peter Popoff
John of God
James Hydrick
Derek Acorah

I can see the confusion. Let me clear it up.

If you re-read my original post about this issue, you will see what happened. My point there was not that parapsychologists have been fooled in a test situation by tricks, although that has happened as well. What I did mean was that the use of tricks, distraction, etc. has always been very heavy in the field of paranormal. All of the names that I quoted are claiming phenomena that parapsychologists are researching.

I did not dig up any papers, because that has nothing to do with my claim. Instead, I backed up my statement by giving you 5 familiar examples of people (4 of them very big names) who work in the field of paranormal, that are shown to use magic tricks and other distractions in order to achieve paranormal effects, be it channeling spirits, angels or dead people, or psychokinesis.

Uri Geller is bending spoons like a magician would.

Popoff is using her wife to electronically transmit him the info he claims to get from spirits.

John of God is claiming to heal people by channeling the skills of long deceased doctors and impressing the uninformed people by extreme looking operations that are old magic tricks, for example pushing tweezers deep into their noses.

James Hydrick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

Derek Acorah was a very famous medium in Most Haunted, he is a liar.

If you want me to back up my position even further, I might agree to do it. But not right now. I just thought this was self-evident for everyone here.

2. You don't know what parapsychology is as a science. As far as I know, only Uri Geller has been a subject in tests that have resulted in two papers in peer reviewed journals. The rest of those persons are only public performers that have very little to do with parapsychology. I happened to find the following information concerning James Hydrick when I checked the persons:
"The judging panel (which included a parapsychologist) stated that, in their opinion, no supernatural phenomenon had taken place."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hydrick

I think I know enough to be able to understand what parapsychology is. What gave you the idea that I don't?

The last I checked, parapsychology is researching the claims that my examples were claiming, correct me I'm wrong.

Again, by bringing up that a parapsychologist was included in the "judging panel" has no negative effect on my claim whatsoever. Derek Acorah was finally busted by the unimpressive parapsychologist in the Most Haunted series. All this only inforces my position that magic tricks and other distractions are heavily used in the field of paranormal, and always have been.

You are nearly always after only special paranormal abilities.

I think that when dealing with such extreme claims, it's best to concentrate on their most convincing evidence than to waste time on the lesser cases. Only if the best case has something interesting in it from a point of view of good evidence, should one direct his or her interest to the lesser cases.

If even the best case is weak, then what is the point of looking deep into even weaker cases? I do think that it's importantto have a good overall picture though, but I think that beginning from the strongest evidence is the best way to go.

Please let me know if there is something important I should consider more about this approach?

There is immense quantity of papers with unselected subjects giving significant results, although the effect size has been low. Well, that must be only because of tricks, sloppy controls and statistical peculiarities, I guess.

You do understand why proper controls and good understanding of statistics are essential in every kind of research?

"Properly tested" means that the tests done by parapsychologists are not counted because every parapsychologist is only a gullible fool?

No.

Every test should be evaluated only by its merits as a test, not because of the people behind it.

"Other researchers" must be skeptics because only they are knowledgeable, objective and without preconceived ideas?

A title does not guarantee anything. A personal case history might tell something useful, but even that will not overshadow the results of a proper test.

Unfortunately such repeated tests are extremely rare because skeptics don't do parapsychological testing.

If true, I would guess that is because of the lack of evidence that would awaken their interest in testing all kinds of strange claims that are against the current understanding of how the world works, ie. psychokinesis.

I'm quite confident that if there was even one encouraging scientifically proper test result of psychokinesis, all kinds of researchers would be all over it. Off the top of my head, I know at least 50 researchers from Helsinki who would be absolutely thrilled to learn about something like that! And I bet they have colleagues.

There is not one single parapsychological paper without at least suspected problems in the protocol. The utmost suspicion is that all parapsychologists are members in a huge and long lasting parapsychological conspiracy. The results in parapsychology are convincing only when the totality of the field is taken in account.

I have not even thought that there could be a conspiracy like this among parapsychologists. If what you say is true, that there is not one single parapsychological paper without at least suspected problems in the protocol, well, there's your problem, right?

Could you elaborate on how and why things are "convincing only when the totality of the field is taken in account"?

There have been a few subjects with observed special paranormal abilities in the history of parapsychology. At the moment I remember only Ingo Swann, Ted Serios and possibly Joe McMoneagle. The poltergeist agents are certainly also special persons. But I will not say more now because I have forgot much and I ought to review my journals to get a better look at the problem.

Ok, do that and provide me with the sufficient info, I will be happy to look into them.

 

[Lusikka]

Thanks, Kuko 4000, for your comments. I regroup them and skip a part because there are so many points.

I'm trying to be as clear as possible.

Good.

Your opinion about the Rosenheim case has not changed, ok.

You know more about the Rosenheim case than I do. Yes, I agree.

You also know much more about the background material concerning poltergeist phenomena. Yes, I agree.

I have very little background to try to grasp your opinions. True.

So, I feel that I have not misrepresented your case. If you disagree, please show me where, and I will apologize and try to correct the mistake.

Every test should be evaluated only by its merits as a test, not because of the people behind it.

A title does not guarantee anything. A personal case history might tell something useful, but even that will not overshadow the results of a proper test.

You are an honest man and I think I am that also. We agree in many points.

So far I've seen only very weak evidence.

Going by the information you have provided, there is just no way of knowing what really happened. The information is too vague and limited.

I think the evidence you have provided is weak. So do most of the others in this thread.

I have pointed out that there is not enough information available to rule out natural causes such as trickery.

From what we know of the world, psi is the least likely explanation.

With so little info, it would be foolish to offer any claims of what really happened, let alone extraordinary claims.

Nearly everything in our heads is only opinion. You have yours and I have mine. Differing opinion is a very realistic and natural thing. Reasonable discussion can bring different opinions nearer each other, but not necessarily.

To review, would you please describe the IMPORTANT details as well as you possibly can?

I want you to convince me that this is good evidence.

Ok, do that and provide me with the sufficient info, I will be happy to look into them.

We have a problem here. I have not the least need to convince you about anything and I don't try to do it either. I have argued during ten years with Finnish skeptics and have learned the rules.

If you re-read my original post about this issue, you will see what happened. My point there was not that parapsychologists have been fooled in a test situation by tricks, although that has happened as well. What I did mean was that the use of tricks, distraction, etc. has always been very heavy in the field of paranormal. All of the names that I quoted are claiming phenomena that parapsychologists are researching.

I did not dig up any papers, because that has nothing to do with my claim. Instead, I backed up my statement by giving you 5 familiar examples of people (4 of them very big names) who work in the field of paranormal, that are shown to use magic tricks and other distractions in order to achieve paranormal effects, be it channeling spirits, angels or dead people, or psychokinesis.

The last I checked, parapsychology is researching the claims that my examples were claiming, correct me I'm wrong.

All this only inforces my position that magic tricks and other distractions are heavily used in the field of paranormal, and always have been.

That reveals your vulgar idea of "paranormal". I have been talking about parapsychology (investigating psi-phenomena) and you have thought about your paranormal. Parapsychologists try to study unexplained phenomena and your 4 last names are producing something that is easily explained. Parapsychologists have nothing to win testing them.

Uri Geller is bending spoons like a magician would.

Geller is a difficult person. On one hand he has cheated and acknowledged it and on the other hand he has done remarkable things. The thousands of mini-Gellers support his claim of being genuine in his best accomplishments.

If true, I would guess that is because of the lack of evidence that would awaken their interest in testing all kinds of strange claims that are against the current understanding of how the world works, ie. psychokinesis.

I'm quite confident that if there was even one encouraging scientifically proper test result of psychokinesis, all kinds of researchers would be all over it. Off the top of my head, I know at least 50 researchers from Helsinki who would be absolutely thrilled to learn about something like that! And I bet they have colleagues.

You are wrong, terribly wrong. The journals of parapsychology have immense quantities of evidence gathered during more than 120 years. If scientists would be truly curious, they would begin with the journals. I myself have been curious and have done so. Finland is full of stories of paranormal observations. I have checked and studied them and reported them, but not one scientist has been interested. There would be much checking work to do, but only our common friend Jani has done something in that direction.

In 1974 I was the only person in Finland trying to do experimental work with the young metal-benders, notwithstanding the vast publicity they reached. As far as I can see, the situation is still worse today. Who would have time to waste reading anecdotes which gullible, foolish and cheating parapsychologists have written. In your own words: "As far as I understand, this is a journal of parapsychology and occult. As others have commented earlier, this is not the kind of journal that most skeptics are looking for, do you see the reason why?"

 

[Kuko 4000]

We have a problem here. I have not the least need to convince you about anything and I don't try to do it either.

I asked for your help to understand this case better, and this is what you reply

That reveals your vulgar idea of "paranormal". I have been talking about parapsychology (investigating psi-phenomena) and you have thought about your paranormal. Parapsychologists try to study unexplained phenomena and your 4 last names are producing something that is easily explained. Parapsychologists have nothing to win testing them.

Could be, I'm going by the Merriam Webster and Wikipedia descriptions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology
http://www.merriam-webster.com/

You see, millions of people worldwide were fooled by these people, for them, what they did was unexplained. Until they were busted.

Geller is a difficult person. On one hand he has cheated and acknowledged it and on the other hand he has done remarkable things. The thousands of mini-Gellers support his claim of being genuine in his best accomplishments.

What's the quality of your evidence that thousands of mini-Gellers support his genuineness?

You are wrong, terribly wrong. The journals of parapsychology have immense quantities of evidence gathered during more than 120 years. If scientists would be truly curious, they would begin with the journals. I myself have been curious and have done so. Finland is full of stories of paranormal observations. I have checked and studied them and reported them, but not one scientist has been interested. There would be much checking work to do, but only our common friend Jani has done something in that direction.

Would you be so kind as to point me to the right direction by maybe choosing me a suitable case from such journals and I will present it to Finnish researchers?

Btw. we are going to check out a paranormal hot spot with Jani, possibly during this month.

In 1974 I was the only person in Finland trying to do experimental work with the young metal-benders, notwithstanding the vast publicity they reached. As far as I can see, the situation is still worse today. Who would have time to waste reading anecdotes which gullible, foolish and cheating parapsychologists have written.

Hey, don't make the case for me that easily. Why would anyone be interested in such writings? Show me the good ones and we have a reason to talk, ok? I know many researchers who would be interested. You do understand why it is important to present them with a good case, right?

In your own words: "As far as I understand, this is a journal of parapsychology and occult. As others have commented earlier, this is not the kind of journal that most skeptics are looking for, do you see the reason why?"

Are you trying to suggest that good research is not going to be published in proper scientific journals because of it's subject?

 

[Lusikka]

You see, millions of people worldwide were fooled by these people, for them, what they did was unexplained. Until they were busted.

Sure, 'unexplained' is always a question of knowledge and opinion. And times are changing and scientific progress is made.

What's the quality of your evidence that thousands of mini-Gellers support his genuineness?

You will not accept this: the number is only my estimation. But certainly even one good mini-Geller case gives support. I have two extremely convincing cases - for myself.

Would you be so kind as to point me to the right direction by maybe choosing me a suitable case from such journals and I will present it to Finnish researchers?

Hey, don't make the case for me that easily. Why would anyone be interested in such writings? Show me the good ones and we have a reason to talk, ok? I know many researchers who would be interested. You do understand why it is important to present them with a good case, right?

Fruitless pains. You and they are not curious. If you were, you would have found out yourselves. And Rosenheim was nothing for you.

Are you trying to suggest that good research is not going to be published in proper scientific journals because of it's subject?

Yes. Different fields of science publish in their own journals. Also parapsychological papers are published in parapsychological journals. During the years parapsychological papers have been published also in some other journals now and then. Easy to check with Google. If you are curious and interested, you will do it yourself and not only ask again and again and again.

 

[Lusikka]

Btw. we are going to check out a paranormal hot spot with Jani, possibly during this month.

Fine - you are a little curious after all. Good hunting!

 

[Lusikka]

This is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal

Paranormal is an umbrella term used to describe unusual phenomena or experiences that lack an obvious scientific explanation. In parapsychology, it is used to describe the potentially psychic phenomena of telepathy, extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, ghosts, and hauntings. The term is also applied to UFOs, some creatures that fall under the scope of cryptozoology, purported phenomena surrounding the Bermuda Triangle, and other non-psychical subjects. Stories relating to paranormal phenomena are widespread in popular culture and folklore, but some organizations such as the United States National Science Foundation have stated that science does not support paranormal beliefs.

I was discussing parapsychology and Kuko 4000 paranormal phenomena in their wider sense. To be more exact, careful parapsychologists are studying psi-phenomena and not paranormal phenomena in their wider sense.

You can see the expression "the term is also applied" without telling who applies it. "Science does not support paranormal beliefs" is a truism. Beliefs are never in need of scientific support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

Parapsychology is a discipline that seeks to demonstrate the existence and causes of psychic abilities and life after death using the scientific method.

This is not so bad. "Demonstrate" is a rather good term, because life after death is beyond any "proof".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Parapsychology: a field of study concerned with the investigation of evidence for paranormal psychological phenomena (as telepathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis)

Well, well – parapsychology is investigating only psychological phenomena? What about the chart recorder, swinging pictures and the spoons?

- As it is possible to see from the above definitions, there may often be something rather "vulgar" blended in the public sources. They must not be blindly trusted.

 

[Lusikka]

I guess that many people here have a rather dim idea of parapsychology as a science. Reading only skeptical sources gives negative impression of parapsychology. I recommend that you read the FAQ here:
http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html

There are for example following topics:
What is the state-of-the-evidence for psi?
Why is parapsychology so controversial?
Common criticisms about parapsychology
Parapsychology does not have a "repeatable" experiment

The FAQ is not the best possible one in my opinion. Dean Radin has been the most authoritative writer there and I don't like Radin and his micro-PK very much. I think Todd Carrol has many good points against Radin here:
http://skepdic.com/essays/radin.html

 

[blutoski]

No, I don't say so. But there are some details that must be taken in consideration here. For the first there are possible hauntings and there are possible poltergeist phenomena. This has been confirmed by Gauld and Cornell, using cluster analysis. But this is not a sharp dichotomy and the phenomena are overlapping rather much.

It's also not 'replication', and so does not refute my point that paranormal (as in ghost) events are not replicable by scientific standards. Replication means that somebody else (unrelated and preferably hostile to the original experimentor) repeats an experiment at another time and location by following the original protocol as closely as possible in an effort to obtain identical results.

Hauntigs are very uncontrollable. Repeatability is poor, because there can be years between single phenomena. The Rosenheim case is a typical poltergeist case and it is not wise to assume that there have been ghosts in action. In active poltergeist cases there is good repeatability. There can be tens of similar phenomena happening, and William Roll did even some experimentation in Miami.

Although the single poltergeist phenomena do not happen on command, they can be studied rather well. Think about astronomy, you cannot command a meteorite to come any time you wish or command a star to explode as a supernova or take a star in the laboratory. Nevertheless skeptics don't say astronomy is not a science.

It's important to point out that that is a poor analogy. The astronomical experiment is the observation. If I am an astronomer and I find a new object, I publish my findings and explain how I observed it. Others can independently attempt to replicate my process, and this will support or cast doubt on my claim. Lots of amateur astronomers report finding a new body, only to be informed that nobody else could locate it, which suggests that it's not really there after all.

Replicability is about, "Do what I did and you should get the same results."

Controls are about, "If the variables are the same, the result should be the same; so, repeat and change variables to isolate the key variable that is responsible for the outcome." When I do an experiment in immunology, there are as many as 5 duplications of each set of controls, and as many as 40 different controls.

In your opinion, is this doable in the type of paranormal research that involves ghosts? (the context in which I said that replicability was not possible in paranormal research was before anybody threw psi research into the mix, so specifically refers to the opening post's offering about poltergiest investigation)

I don't like this authority talk at all. Parapsychologists have different backgrounds and they are differing in their opinions. Every parapsychologist has a certain piece to put in the puzzle but there are not single authorities. Susan Blackmore, for example, seems not to have very good grasp of the physical world and physical phenomena but she is strong in psychology.

Then it's hard for me to work toward a reference, if you're not telling me what you would accept. I'm concerned that I will waste my time playing rounds of no true scotsman a la cheese shop.

 

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Lusikka:
No, I don't say so. But there are some details that must be taken in consideration here. For the first there are possible hauntings and there are possible poltergeist phenomena. This has been confirmed by Gauld and Cornell, using cluster analysis. But this is not a sharp dichotomy and the phenomena are overlapping rather much.

It's also not 'replication', and so does not refute my point that paranormal (as in ghost) events are not replicable by scientific standards. Replication means that somebody else (unrelated and preferably hostile to the original experimentor) repeats an experiment at another time and location by following the original protocol as closely as possible in an effort to obtain identical results.

There is a serious problem: you either don't read my posts carefully or you don't understand very much. You did not notice that I only tried to cast light to the problem of haunting and poltergeist phenomena and did not talk about 'replication' at all. I don't understand what hostility has to do in science.

Originally Posted by Lusikka:
Although the single poltergeist phenomena do not happen on command, they can be studied rather well. Think about astronomy, you cannot command a meteorite to come any time you wish or command a star to explode as a supernova or take a star in the laboratory. Nevertheless skeptics don't say astronomy is not a science.

It's important to point out that that is a poor analogy. The astronomical experiment is the observation. If I am an astronomer and I find a new object, I publish my findings and explain how I observed it. Others can independently attempt to replicate my process, and this will support or cast doubt on my claim. Lots of amateur astronomers report finding a new body, only to be informed that nobody else could locate it, which suggests that it's not really there after all.

You did not notice my point in the analogy. It was the uncontrollability I was talking about. Parapsychologists are compelled to study uncontrollable observations as is often done also in astronomy. There is still another point in the analogy: other parapsychologists can compare their similar observations, as is done also in astronomy.

Replicability is about, "Do what I did and you should get the same results."

Controls are about, "If the variables are the same, the result should be the same; so, repeat and change variables to isolate the key variable that is responsible for the outcome." When I do an experiment in immunology, there are as many as 5 duplications of each set of controls, and as many as 40 different controls.

Yes, it is so in the fields of pure (natural) science. But when you are studying human beings, then replicability is not such a simple and straightforward story. In psychology, medicine, ethnology and so on scientific methods are used but good replicability is much more difficult to achieve than in physics, chemistry and so on. Parapsychology is also, using scientific methods, studying what happens to human beings,.

Are you sure I did and do not understand what replicability is?

In your opinion, is this doable in the type of paranormal research that involves ghosts? (the context in which I said that replicability was not possible in paranormal research was before anybody threw psi research into the mix, so specifically refers to the opening post's offering about poltergiest investigation)

Can you, please, tell me where you need ghosts in the Rosenheim case? Had somebody observed them?

Originally Posted by Lusikka:
I don't like this authority talk at all. Parapsychologists have different backgrounds and they are differing in their opinions. Every parapsychologist has a certain piece to put in the puzzle but there are not single authorities. Susan Blackmore, for example, seems not to have very good grasp of the physical world and physical phenomena but she is strong in psychology.

Then it's hard for me to work toward a reference, if you're not telling me what you would accept. I'm concerned that I will waste my time playing rounds of no true scotsman a la cheese shop.

Well, you need names, I assume. I can give you some names although they are not to me such absolute authorities as Randi appears to be here. I have rather much to criticize in everybody of them - J. B. Rhine not so much because of his pioneering work:

Carlos S. Alvarado
John Beloff
Hans Bender
Dick J. Bierman
Jason J. Braithwaite
Etzel Cardeña
A. D. Cornell
Alan Gauld
Nicola J. Holt
Joop M. Houtkooper
Robert Morris
Peter Mulacz
John Palmer
Adrian Parker
Dean Radin
J. B. Rhine
Louisa E. Rhine
William Roll
Ian Stevenson
Jessica Utts
Nancy L. Zingrone