The Scole Experiments

[SteveGrenard]

Here is a list (official from the actual report) of those present during some phase of the Scole sitting experiment:

Prof. Arthur Ellison
Dr. Alan Gauld (acted as a sitter)
Prof. Archie Roy
Prof. Bernard Carr
Prof. David Fontana
Prof. Donald West (acted as a sitter)
Dr. Hans Schaer
Prof. Ivor Grattan-Guiness
Ingrid Slack
Karin Schnitiger
Montague Keen
Ralph Noyes
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (acted as a sitter)
Walter Schnittger

(Dr. Richard Wiseman provided a a security bag to hold the film
during some of the sessions but was not an investigator. )

The mediums were:

Alan Bennett
Bernetta Head
Diana Bennett
Ken Britten
Robin Foy
Sandra Foy

Pg 156.

Colin Fry was NOT involved in any way with this experiment. I have a series of e-mails from Fry who says he will never cooperate with scientists in order to conduct experiments and that he has nothing to prove to them re his abilities either as a mental or as a physical medium. I arranged for my wife to attend a session he was to conduct but he never showed up and sent someone else instead. It was held in total and complete darkness and it was impossible to determine if any of the voices and "presences" were living people or spirit phenomena.

I agree that in the absence of infra-red video surveillance of such seance rooms it is impossible to determine the validity of what is alleged to occur. There have been some few mediums who were willing to work in red light or low light in the past but none recently, especially since the development of simple, hand-held vid cameras coupled with the use of non-visible (light) ceramic infra red emitters. We use this technology in the sleep lab. The room remains completely dark but even an ordinary video camera records the subject's sleep looking almost as if it were in full daylight.


Insfar as I am aware the Scole report cannot be ordered online from the SPR but only by post. You can send CC info or obtain latest price and postage first from:

(SPR, 49 Marloes Rd, London W8 6LA, England)

The report is:

Proceedings of the Society for Psychial Research
Vol 58, Part 220 - November 1999. pp. 452.

Listed as authors:

M. Keen
A. Ellison
D. Fontana

(As I recall it was quite reasonable at around ten pounds plus postage).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And none of those Profs. and Drs. brought a flashlight to turn on during the sessions. I simply do not understand what goes on in these people's brains. They exhibit so much respect for the Scole groups' wishes that they end up acting like idiots.

Sorry, just venting.

~~ Paul

 

[CFLarsen]

Paul,

You are right. It really is amazing to see (probably) otherwise smart people throwing all precaution and experience overboard when it comes to paranormal testing.

We saw it with Scole.

We saw it with Schwartz.

We've even seen it with Steve Grenard, who helped design an abomination of a paranormal test once. He ended up blaming the test-persons for his own faults.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Actually Claus I was not involved in the design of that experiment and the controls I recruited were redundent controls or outside controls, some of whose ratings had to be invalidated. In any case the experiment has gone forward and is under pre-publication peer review. The preliminary information given by these controls was very important in helping to showcase some problems the designers of the experiment did not envision and subsequent trials took these into account. Our controls provided valuable feedback so in the end these controls did serve a very important purpose, and I have acknowledged and thanked them for their participation in spite of some leakage caused by one or two of them. Because they were "extra" this leakage did not impact negatively either on the preliminary trials and definitely not on the follow-up trials. For the prelims they had the very positive effect of providing feedback concerning the design of the project and how it was rated, covering such things as gender differences which was completely overlooked in the original design.

Sometimes we have to learn from our mistakes.

 

[CFLarsen]

Actually Claus I was not involved in the design of that experiment and the controls I recruited were redundent controls or outside controls, some of whose ratings had to be invalidated.

Liar. On 07-13-2002, you posted this on SurvivalScience:

Experimental Volunteers Wanted as Controls
Dr. Gary Schwartz and myself are doing an experiment involving obtaining information non-locally using 4 mediums and 5 research sitters from different backgrounds, cultures and parts of the U.S.

As part of this project, we would like to test the generalization hypothesis by having as many control (non-sitters) as possible rate the information that applies to the intended sitters.

(Emphasis mine)

Once again, you are caught lying.

Later, you claimed you didn't do "experiments", but "tests".

You want to see the whole saga again, Steve? It's right here...

 

[SteveGrenard]

As the post clearly indicates and confirms, I did not and was not designing the experiment. I was recruiting controls to test the generalization hypothesis. Thank you for confirming this.

Yes, Schwartz, myself, and as indicated numerous others did this experiment. It does not say I designed the experiment.

Again, myself as well as others must remind you that you do not read carefully enough before you make assertions, thus negating the validity of the assertions.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

As the post clearly indicates and confirms, I did not and was not designing the experiment. I was recruiting controls to test the generalization hypothesis. Thank you for confirming this.

Oh no? Then how do you explain this little quote of yours?

The control phase is an add-on suggested by Grenard based on James Randi's proposed testing of Sylvia Browne. Narrowly, this procedure would serve to falsify or validate the generalization or specificity hypothesis, depending on how you look at it. We will ask each of the volunteer controls to rate the inventory of ADLs for the intended sitters as if it were true or false for them. This would need to be done on the specific day it ocurred for the intended or targeted sitters.

(Emphasis mine)

Hm?

Yes, Schwartz, myself, and as indicated numerous others did this experiment. It does not say I designed the experiment.

You said you suggested the control phase. Is that not part of the design??? A procedure that "would serve to falsify or validate the generalization or specificity hypothesis, depending on how you look at it" is not part of the experimental design???

Again, myself as well as others must remind you that you do not read carefully enough before you make assertions, thus negating the validity of the assertions.

Again, I must remind you that every time I call you a liar, I always back it up with evidence. I can't catch all of your lies, because you make so many. But those I can catch...

 

[SteveGrenard]

As the additional post clearly indicates, I SUGGESTED this control phase to test for genealization. Once again, I did not design the experiment. Let me simplify this for you.

There is an active phase of the experiment (which I did NOT design). This was the tasks undertaken by the mediums and sitters. The sitters were to rate the information obtained by the mediums regarding their daily activities on particular days.

I suggested the addition of control raters to test Randi's SB generalization hypothesis. This was NOT part of the design of the experiment. It was an add on. As it turned out the controls, which were recruited both from among members here and on the SS board, played an important role in providing feedback on flaws in the design of the experiment. Unofrtunately do to some premature leakge which I did not control we could not use the data to validate or invalidate the ratings but it did provide important feedback which was, is and will be acknowledged.

Again, how you can equate "suggesting" something with the design of an experiment is something you need to work on......
you need to refrain from reading into statements things which are not there. If you want to say I designed the experiment, kindly show us where I said I did that....you cannot, because I did not design the experiment.

In addition, beyond suggesting these conrols and helping to recruit them, I had nothing more to do with the rating information they received, its content or design. I just recruited some names and e-mail addresses. I do not want to take credit for anything I did not do.

The evidence you claim to back up your assertions is puny, trivial and completely fallacious. Hence you can believe you are backing up something with evidence but you need to realize that on the face of it, this evidence which you cling to so tenaciously backs up nothing and, if anything, confirms what I have said above. Thank you again for sharing this.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

The control phase was not part of the experiment.

Yeah, sure.

You are one weird chap, Steve...

 

[SteveGrenard]

Hmm.. anyone want to talk about the Scole Experiment? or are we hijacked yet again...

well, sorry must respond:

As all the posts you were kind enough to archive indicates, the objective and design of the experiment was not to test for generalization. This was NOT part of the design of the experiment. So your answer in this case is: No. The experiment
was designed and planned by others before I brought this up.

As the experiment was about to go forward there were no controls for generalization. I reiterate -- why not take this
opportunity also to test for generalization by getting some control raters in addition to the sitter raters? The
principal investigator said okay to this suggestion and this is what was done.

It was never part of the protocol and was an add on.

There are 24 people now involved in helping to set up experiments to test mediumship (not to test specific mediums per se) and any suggestions, including from members here, are appreciated and may be communicated by private e-mail or in public here.

This does not mean that all of these 24 scientists and researchers are designing the experiments. It does mean they are contributing to it. The ultimate design of any experiment, as you should know, rests with the principal investigator.

 

[CFLarsen]

Hmm.. anyone want to talk about the Scole Experiment? or are we hijacked yet again...

"We" are not hijacked, Steve. I mentioned the peculiar behavior of paranormal researchers, you among them. That kinda ticked you off, so....

well, sorry must respond:

As all the posts you were kind enough to archive indicates, the objective and design of the experiment was not to test for generalization. This was NOT part of the design of the experiment. So your answer in this case is: No. The experiment was designed and planned by others before I brought this up.

Read your own words again, Steve:

"Dr. Gary Schwartz and myself are doing an experiment"

This is the first time you bring up "others". Odd, isn't it?

As the experiment was about to go forward there were no controls for generalization. I reiterate -- why not take this opportunity also to test for generalization by getting some control raters in addition to the sitter raters? The principal investigator said okay to this suggestion and this is what was done.

It was never part of the protocol and was an add on.

Steve, an experiment without controls is worthless! It is simply not an experiment. It's a travesty.

Are you saying that Schwartz designed an experiment without controls?? Because that is the worst I have ever heard. He is very much aware of all the criticism of his Arizona experiments, and now he (along with you, lest we forget) designs one completely without controls?

You do realize what you are saying here, right? In order to save your butt, you are putting Schwartz in a very difficult position.

There are 24 people now involved in helping to set up experiments to test mediumship (not to test specific mediums per se) and any suggestions, including from members here, are appreciated and may be communicated by private e-mail or in public here.

Who are these people? Or aren't you the kind that tells...?

This does not mean that all of these 24 scientists and researchers are designing the experiments. It does mean they are contributing to it. The ultimate design of any experiment, as you should know, rests with the principal investigator.

And this principal investigator is....?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: This is the first time you bring up "others". Odd, isn't it?


No it isn't. Go back and read again. You really need to comprehend more better ... I immediately follow that statement by listing the participants in the experiment by category.

Larsen: Steve, an experiment without controls is worthless! It is simply not an experiment. It's a travesty.

SInce you do not know anything about the original protocol, you won't know there were other controls but not for the generalization hypothesis. In addition the independent assistant
kept all information sealed until the entire series was completed.


Larsen: Are you saying that Schwartz designed an experiment without controls?? Because that is the worst I have ever heard. He is very much aware of all the criticism of his Arizona experiments, and now he (along with you, lest we forget) designs one completely without controls?

I responded above to this reiteration.


Larsen: You do realize what you are saying here, right? In order to save your butt, you are putting Schwartz in a very difficult position.

More hyperbole. Answered above.


Larsen: Who are these people? Or aren't you the kind that tells...?

Seven or eight pHD psychologists on different faculties,
several physicians, in the UK (Keen) and some British
researchers. We also have several research mediums
(not any of Dr. Schwartz's group) who can contribute if they
wish. They are low profile and do not do mediumship for a
living or even publicly.




Larsen: And this principal investigator is....?

There is none. Anyone, two or three+ of them can take the collective information and design their own experiments.
There is no organized project, just discussion of protocols
so that anyone can benefit from multidisicplinary and multi-
center opinion, advice or suggestions. This is why I invited
anyone here with a serious interest to contribute if they wish.

The group, however, is private so beyond the above I am not at liberty to divulge more information but anyone can e-mail if they are interested in contributing ideas to protocols for testing mediumship and telepathy.

 

[CFLarsen]

No it isn't. Go back and read again. You really need to comprehend more better ... I immediately follow that statement by listing the participants in the experiment by category.

No, I meant: Today. You said nothing of "others" when you talked about it initially on TVTalkshows.

SInce you do not know anything about the original protocol, you won't know there were other controls but not for the generalization hypothesis. In addition the independent assistant kept all information sealed until the entire series was completed.

Now you tell us. I'll bet you can't show us.

Seven or eight pHD psychologists on different faculties, several physicians, in the UK (Keen) and some British researchers. We also have several research mediums (not any of Dr. Schwartz's group) who can contribute if they wish. They are low profile and do not do mediumship for a living or even publicly.

Steve, when I ask "who", I don't mean what you describe. "Who" as in names. Keen is one. Who else?

There is no organized project, just discussion of protocols so that anyone can benefit from multidisicplinary and multi-center opinion, advice or suggestions. This is why I invited anyone here with a serious interest to contribute if they wish.

No organized project. The story of paranormal research.

The group, however, is private so beyond the above I am not at liberty to divulge more information but anyone can e-mail if they are interested in contributing ideas to protocols for testing mediumship and telepathy.

"Private". "Not at liberty". Same old ◊◊◊◊ from you, Steve.

 

[Ed]

As I have pointed out many times, the story of Psychic research is the story of lousey experiments. I am coming more and more to the firm conclusion that the researchers involved are engaged in fraud, pure and simple. There is catagorically no reason that an experienced researcher would suddenly go blank when it comes to elementry experimental design EXCEPT if the "flaws" would be fixed on the next go round and the next and the next.

The lack of use of night vision devices is horseshat of the highest order. Since when are subjects informed of the controls that are put in place?

This field is a joke.

 

[SteveGrenard]

ED: The lack of use of night vision devices is horseshat of the highest order. Since when are subjects informed of the controls that are put in place?

With respect to phenomena that are produced in pitch blackness I do not disagree with you and said as much above regarding the use of IR lighted rooms with video surveillance. However, it would be impossible not to tell the subjects you are using such equipment, including night vision (which also emits a green glow) as it would become apparent as soon as it is employed.
Therefore, it is far better in this instance to get the assent of this type of security measure in advance from the subject. If the subject declines then one can only conclude they are indeed full of manure. The primary objection to any kind of visible light has been related to it's harming of the medium producing the phenomena. I frankly don't see how or why this is true as there have been some mediums in this area who have worked in conditions involving visible light. But even if for a moment this were true, my suggestion about using video and non-visible light which works well quells that objection and I have passed it along to researchers in the UK who are trying to find mediums who produce physical phenomena. Not surprisingly so far there have been no takers. I have watched some videos of transfiguration mediums also and found their performance no better and no worse than any decent actor portraying the role of a person with MPD.

 

[PixyMisa]

I am coming more and more to the firm conclusion that the researchers involved are engaged in fraud, pure and simple.

I think it's still possible to give some researchers the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are merely idiots. But it's getting hard.

 

[Psiload]

Steve Grenard wrote:

With respect to phenomena that are produced in pitch blackness I do not disagree with you and said as much above regarding the use of IR lighted rooms with video surveillance. However, it would be impossible not to tell the subjects you are using such equipment, including night vision (which also emits a green glow) as it would become apparent as soon as it is employed

Night vision does not emit a green glow. IR light is quite invisible to the human eye. IR night vision technology is now widely, and cheaply(relatively speaking) available. Sony has integrated extremely effective night vision technology into new models of their video cameras... I know, I own one. If you use the camera in a pitch black room, the room remains pitch black. The only indication of the IR source are two tiny, faintly glowing red led lights on the camera... they emit just enough light to be seen, but certainly not enough to even come close to illuminating a room. Such devices could EASILY be used without being detected... the camera itself is tiny, and will easily fit in the palm of a hand. And the led lights are barely noticible, very dim, and they can be hidden by employing shrouds, and filters over the IR light source. It probably wouldn't even be necessary to hide them, given that they could easily pass for such things as the indicator lights on smoke detectors and such.

 

[SteveGrenard]

The only night vision devices I have seen do emit a greenish tinge and on color video produce a greenish cast. The technology which you refer to uses extremely tiny pinpoints of i.r. light and I agree this technology can also be used.

The technology used in videotaping sleeping patients undergoing testing for sleep disorders involve the use of a totally non-light emitting ceramic near infra red array that bathes the entire room (140 sq feet) in invisible light. We use an ordinary b&w sony video camera mounted inside a smoked glass bubble on the ceiling in a corner of the room. Outside we have a b&w monitor (which gives the best picture for this) and remote controls for the camera so we can pan, tilt, focus and zoom without going anywhere near it.

The rooms either have no windows, tight fitting doors or blackout curtains and sound/light attenuating venetian blinds as well as
being sound proofed overall. We also record sound from a room mic and a mic taped to the subject's neck (to do a sonograph of snoring). This extra measure in a paranormal investigation would preclude ventroliquy from occuring as well.

The most famous medium producing physical materializations which defy explanation worked long before this technology became available (in the 40s and early 50s). Her name was Helen Duncan for anyone who wants to research her on the web. She worked in conditions of visible light and in unfamiliar rooms as well.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Psiload, will that camera of yours pick up a human? Someone told me the other day that commercial cameras aren't sensitive enough to IR to record a human, so you need real night vision goggles.

~~ Paul

 

[Psiload]

The only night vision devices I have seen do emit a greenish tinge and on color video produce a greenish cast. The technology which you refer to uses extremely tiny pinpoints of i.r. light and I agree this technology can also be used.

The technology used in videotaping sleeping patients undergoing testing for sleep disorders involve the use of a totally non-light emitting ceramic near infra red array that bathes the entire room (140 sq feet) in invisible light. We use an ordinary b&w sony video camera mounted inside a smoked glass bubble on the ceiling in a corner of the room. Outside we have a b&w monitor (which gives the best picture for this) and remote controls for the camera so we can pan, tilt, focus and zoom without going anywhere near it.

The rooms either have no windows, tight fitting doors or blackout curtains and sound/light attenuating venetian blinds as well as
being sound proofed overall. We also record sound from a room mic and a mic taped to the subject's neck (to do a sonograph of snoring). This extra measure in a paranormal investigation would preclude ventroliquy from occuring as well.

The most famous medium producing physical materializations which defy explanation worked long before this technology became available (in the 40s and early 50s). Her name was Helen Duncan for anyone who wants to research her on the web. She worked in conditions of visible light and in unfamiliar rooms as well.

Yeah, lot's of mediums used to produce "physical materializations" in darkened rooms before the introduction of night vision technology... the trumpet floaters are a lot more rare these days. And those that do make such claims(i.e.- the Scole Group) seem to have some sort of mysterious allergic reaction to IR light.

Things that make you go... hmmmmmmmm?

The fact that such technology was available, yet was not allowed to be employed during the Scole experiments, is all any honest investigator should need to dismiss the claims of The Scole Group right out of hand. I just don't understand why any honest, competent investigator would waste his/her time and reputation on an experiment that was controlled by the test subject... I just don't get it. The Scole Group's argument against the use of night vision cameras was ludicrously transparent. It doesn't take a trained, experienced investigator to realize that... any fool can see what's going on.

Months of investigation, reams of reports, meetings, debates, claims, accusations, denials... all could have been avoided with a few clicks on Amazon.com to purchase a Sony camera with Nightshot(tm). I'm sorry, but I just can't give the Scole investigators the benefit of my doubt, it would only be charity. They were/are incompetent boobs.