• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The SCOLE Experiment

A

Anonymous

Guest
Anyone familiar with this project?

http://www.psisci.force9.co.uk/

They claimed some pretty wild stuff. I think the debate is still open as to the authenticity of the events. Anyone know what these people are up to now?
 
Several books are available which are related the Scole Experiment.

The best is 'The Scole Report' by Montague Keen, Arthur Ellison and David Fontana (this is a volume of the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research: Vol 58, Part 220, November 1999)

Also available, although somewhat uncritical is 'The Scole Experiment' by Grant & Jane Solomon.

'In Pursuit of Physical Mediumship' by Robin Foy is a book by one of the leading members of the Scole Group, I haven't read it so I can't comment on it.

All of these books are available from Amazon.

The experiment is apparently no longer running, having received interference from 'a personality from the future'.
 
I forgot to mention that The Anomalist #9 has an article about the Scole Experiment by Montague Keen of the SPR, cunningly mistitled 'Intelligent Communications with Extraterrestrials'.
 
I know a man...

Dear Simon & 'Mind' ( or Mr.Trap ),
Yes, in a word - The Scole Group was the great white hope of Physical Mediumship, and was hoped to usher in a whole new era of physical mediumship on the scale of DD Home, and the other mediums studied by Sir.William Crookes and the early S.P.R.
Many of us in paranormal research thought, " at last ! Here is something to get out teeth into ! "
From early on the S.P.R were present, and as you say Montague Keen wrote the report on the sittings. I belong to the Scottish S.P.R and several fellow members were present.
I am quoting from memory, and if you are really interested, I could ask them to submit a paragraph or two to this website - but from what I remember them telling me - they were impressed.
One esteemed member of the Scottish S.P.R. says that he had a conversation with a spirit entity ( through the medium ) on Celestial Mechanics ; a discussion which he says he could only have with another five people in the country ( so, hard to swat up on if the medium was faking it ).
Another member saw a tunnel of stars materialise with a three dimensional and solid child's arm coming through..
There were many spectacular apports and apparitions reported, but ultimately the S.P.R were not allowed to use the controls they wanted to - despite substancial controls already being in place. Also, despite the mediumship being physical, the physical evidence came under question, and ultimately wasn't convincing ( or convincing enough ).
I am not suggesting that the persons present during the sittings were fooled or were hallucinating ( although, they could have been, but how ?? Where's the proof that they were hoaxed ?? ), but it is a shame that overall the Scole Group didn't come up with the goods - i.e - proof of, er...something inexplicable.
But isn't that the paranormal for you ??
The closer you think you're getting to proof, to establishing some sort of reality, or explanation ~ the further you find yourself from solid ground ..
Fortean indeed.
Regards,

Innes
 
I remember these guys from a while ago. Does anybody really believe they're serious? The photos page, for example. Three of the images are well-known prints (and likely copyright violations). And they expect us to believe... what? These are somehow psychicallly produced? These people must think we're retarded. Honestly, after all this time you'd think they could come up with something better.
 
"These people must think we're retarded."

I ask you then what would constitute proof in your mind? I think the mere fact that these images were produced on unopened canisters of film while using strict controls is highly enigmatic.

This in itself was hardly anything monumental since spirit photography has been around for some time.

If you have really objectively scrutinized these proceedings, then I would ask that you explain the other phenomenon that resulted which were much more revolutionary. For instance the lights that would enter and exit solid objects, levitations of objects that would move through legs of chairs and perform impossible feats, apports of objects from the past that excluded any signs of aging, materializations of solid bodies in plain view, etc..

The phenomenon that resulted from these seances were far from typical and as yet unexplained.
 
I can say what constitutes proof of fakery, and that's simply displaying existing photographs and claiming they are paranormal. Clearly, they are not. Now, if some historical figure had been displayed in a pose never before captured on film then that would be a start, but to simply display well-known photos - that is truly pathetic.

Spirit photography has indeed been around a long time, and every single instance that has been properly investigated - without exception - has been proven to be a fraud. Ditto the mediums themselves. People have so quickly forgotten the work of Houdini, who investigated hundreds of these charlatans and wasn't fooled by a single one.

As far as SCOLE go, there's nothing to explain because there's no credible occurrences to examine. A few magic parlour tricks, known to even the most amateur of magicians, do not constitute evidence. Levitating objects in seances have been around for well over a hundred years. Perhaps they've updated their techniques, but it's still trickery. Point me to the image or the video that proves that anything supernatural occurred. If I were stuck in a room where these events were genuine and commonplace you can bet your life I'd come up with something better than a copy of a photo of St Pauls Cathedral, a gaudy collage knocked up in Photoshop and a string of nonsense characters etched in felt tip.

Over and over again these fakes try to hoodwink us by trotting out the same tired old rubbish. It's depressing. I don't know whether this SCOLE group were the fakers or the victims of fakery, and to be honest, it doesn't really matter. Just because it's not possbile to say how something was done doesn't make it paranormal. Dozens of magicians strut their stuff on TV every week, performing far more impressive feats without the audience having a clue how they managed it. So a photo of a dot of light against a black backdrop seems somehow a little lame.
 
I can understand your doubts. One of the things I found down-right hard to accept was the fact that most of the spirit personalities which were regulars to the group were very Euro-centric for lack of a better expression. Surely not all spirit entities evolved enough to communicate with physical beings like ourselves resided in the UK or past territories of the UK.

I would love to hear some first hand experiences from witnesses to these events. Obviously it's impossible to determine the legitimacy of these events merely from second hand anecdotes.

Perhaps Innis has some more to add.
 
I agree that it is a bit Euro-centric, and (like EVP) nothing of import is being said, and what is actually being said is said in contemporary languages. One wonders why the spirits of ancient Greeks or Romans, or even Chinesee do not come through in such instances. The dead (if that's is who are actually responsible for such phenomena) seem to not say that much, despite all their efforts to imprint stuff on film negatives, etc.. Surely it would be much for useful for them to give us, for example, some proof that there is actually life after death? Especially if those coming through are people like Meyers, etc. from the SPR...
 
This reminds me of the direct voice phenomenon of Leslie Flint and how coincidentally all of the male spirit voices that communicated through him had basically the same voice while any female or young childrens voices sounded like a man imitating a female or young child. Perhaps I did not listen to enough of the material but that is the impression I am left with.

However, this in and of itself does not constitute fraud in my book but perhaps more of a self-delusion on the part of the mediums who are creating the phenomenon. The proceedings at Scole produced some amazing effects over that five years and are worthy of more consideration even if all they were are parlor tricks. If they were parlor tricks they were quite impressive and fooled many people.

Based on other evidence from other experiments such as the Philip experiment etc. I am leaning more towards the idea that at least some of these phenomenon are created by the living mediums themselves although sub-consciously.
 
Scole versus Fraud

Dear All,
In response to the debate about whether Scole was an elaborate hoax, I have these scraps of opinion to offer :
I was not there. But I know and have talked to three persons who were there. If one had to put them in a category, I would describe them as being 'believers' ; not uncritical, or unsceptical, but believers nonetheless. Now, it seems that seances work best with an audience of believers rather than an audience of Sceptics ( James Randi would not get an invite ). This is interesting, and has to be significant.
But we surely cannot dismiss all experiences as either a gross misinterpretation or exaggeration of a crude or elaborate hoax ? ( Although, many may be ! ) ; Or an extreme willingness, conscious or unconscious, to be fooled, hypnotised, or deluded into thinking that something truely marvellous has happened ?
The witnesses that I know are very intelligent, astute and observant - and, although they are believers, they did go to Scole to investigate as well as experience.
Again, I was not there. My colleagues were ; and they saw some extraordinary things - things I would find it hard to imagine how any stage magician could fake ( have you read the report ? It makes extraordinary reading ). This does not mean that the Scole Group were not expert Magicians / illusionists / hypnotists ? ; it's just that there is no evidence that I'm aware of that proves The Scole Group were / are part-time expert illusionists.
I can't explain what happened, other than all the witnesses were surrepticiously hypnotised, but that seems rather ..far fetched ?
It is frustrating that the Scole Group didn't go the full way as far as satisfying the need for solid proof, physical evidence, or filming the sittings - but Scole did leave many people with bizarre experiences..
It will probably remain a frustrating mystery.
Maybe the more paranormal an event is - the less believable it's meant to be ??
I've certainly been unconvinced by any trance-mediumship I've witnessed - but I've yet to witness physical mediumship.. Who knows if I ever will??
Regards,

Innes

P.S - Maybe this should be another Thread, but who's heard of Helen Duncan ?? Well, it shouldn't be too hard for you to track down a photo of Helen with an unsightly blob of ectoplasm on her right shoulder. Within the blob is an alleged spirit entity. You will probably remember the photo, because it is hilariously and comically unconvincing. YET ! I know a marvellous old lady who sat with Helen Duncan, and personally can recollect with laser precision ( she's old, but by 'eck she's got all her marbles - infact more than I'll ever have ! ) many a seance where Helen produced impressive materialisations. How do we explain this ? How did Helen produce impressive hoaxes infront of people in low light ( not darkness ) , but produce ridiculous photo's as "proof" ??
Surely believers are not that gullible ?
Or maybe ectoplasmic entities are naturally ..unnatural ?
 
I have asked Montague Keen (author of 'The Scole Report') if he would be willing to chime in on this subject to give this thread a bit more legitimacy. I hope that he will oblige.
 
Give us the Full Monty !

Dear MindTrap,
Jolly good. As I say, I'm at a loss to explain what happened at Scole. For those that want to dismiss Scole as a hoax, let them address their concerns directly to those that were actually there.
Regards,

Innes
 
Unfortunately, as the experiment is over, nothing can be proved definitively. Myself, I'm 100% convinced that the whole thing was a fake - not by everyone present, but by some key members. What I can't understand, however, is the accounts of these events being cited by some as evidence, i.e. "I can't see how they did this, so it must be genuine." Every single one of these events can be put down to the most basic of conjouring tricks, really simple stuff that even a kid could learn. If the best a TV magician could come up with was switching objects in a sealed box in a dark room then he'd be out of a job before the cameras warmed up. Let's face it, if the dead wanted to prove their existence then why indulge in all this half-assed nonsense? It only needs one unequivocal event!

Clear table. Lights go off. There's a bump. Lights go on. There's a coin there! Oh please...

Surely believers are not that gullible ?
Click to expand...

Yes they are. They really, really are. A skilled magician or hypnotist can, without any trouble whatsoever, convince people of the most unlikely scenarios. I mean, does nobody watch Derren Brown? One of his tricks was to stand a person in the middle of a lawn at dusk. He says a few words and the person experiences a feeling of sheer terror, swearing that something has grabbed them or whispered in their ear, and they can't be convinced otherwise. Of course, we all say, "Sure, what a great hypnotist" - only an idiot would suggest Mr Brown is supernatural. So why are "we" so eager to believe when a group of people create similar (though much less accomplished) effects and claim it's the work of the dead?
 
Let's be Fortean about this..

Dear Desperado,

I wasn't there and you weren't there, and the both of us seem to agree that Scole ultimately failed in producing convincing evidence of the afterlife, other dimensions, whatever..

We also seem to agree that perhaps we shall never know exactly what went on, and how the effects which were witnessed by many people were achieved.
What confuses me is how you can be 100% certain that the Scole Group were hoaxers ? How can you be sure ? Because the alternative is impossible ?

As Forteans we should entertain the impossible : we don't have to believe anything.

I accept that slight of hand may have been involved ; I accept that hypnotism may have been used ; but surely the next question, if we're to be scientifically rigorous about it, is :

" Is there any proof of hoaxing, and can we replicate these effects ? "

If we do not ask such questions, then we are not seeking an explanation, rather, we are 'explaining away'; damning data!

Now I accept that the physical evidence / the apports were not impressive and apparently the controls over the sealed film were not good enough ~ so, it may be possible that these were hoaxed.

But what about a tunnel of lights and a child's arm poking out ?
This is what my colleague saw.
If this is a trick, then how is it done ? How was it done ?
Was he hypnotised ? Again ; how was this done ?

This is simply a plea to be open-minded. I don't know what happened, but I have read about it, and spoken to witnesses, and it does sound..interesting. If it was a hoax, then it was ( arguably ) a very good one ; let's ask how it was done ? If it was some weird mass hallucination ( a favourite disclaimer ), then again ; how and why did it happen ?

I would ask you to reduce your percentage-based belief to a healthier 96 %.

And yes, I accept believers are more likely to accept something which fits into their belief system, but that includes die-hard Sceptics too.

Relax. Have a jam sandwich.

Regards,

Innes
 
Just recieved this e-mail from Monty.


Dear [MindTrap],

Thank you for drawing my attention to the ongoing discussion of the Scole Report, and inviting my comments. Unfortunately I have no idea how to participate in the discussion directly, but would be pleased if you were able to transmit the following comments:

As the principal author of the Scole Report, published as part of the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research in December 1999, I am happy to deal with criticisms and comments, but it does help if those who offer criticisms show some familiarity with what they are attempting to criticise.
Practically all the issues raised, and the doubts voiced, were dealt with in extenso in the Report itself, or in the authors' comments on the three critics whose views were included in the same Volume.

It is questionable whether it is worth attempting to deal with "Desperado", whose comments combine unfamiliarity with the Report, arrogant disdain for the facts, arbitrary exclusion of material inconsistent with his prejudices, falsification of history and contempt for those with first hand experience of phenomena outside his own.

A few facts are worth repeating or, in some cases, recording for the first time. It is helpful to know that an experienced former professional magician, member of the Inner Circle of the Magic Circle and a silver medallist attended three sittings with the Group (of six people) and is firmly convinced that what he experienced was beyond the competence of any professional magician. The "photographs" which most impressed us as investigators (Professor Arthur Ellison, Professor David Fontana and myself) were totally distinct from traditional spirit photography or even Serios-type thoughtography. All were produced during the seances from rolls of 24 or 36 film which had been bought and handled by us, not been removed from their wrappings or canisters, retained under our control or locked in a box resting on the table in front of us or held in our hands. What emereged from this process, in which no cameras were involved
and no opportunity for substitution was possible in virtually all cases, was a wide variety of impressions stretching along the entire width of the film rolls. This applied to 35mm Polaroid film developed by us immediately after the sitting, as to Kodachrome 200 colour film developed by Kodak. What was on the films varied from an apparently unpublished poem in German script, reproductions of manuscript amendments to a little known poem by Wordsworth, in the handwriting of his sister Dorothy, part of a poem by Frederic Myers, several alchemical symbols, an instruction sketch to enable Professor Ellison to effect changes in a primitive semi-conductor device he had earlier constructed to the precise specifications of mediumistic messages, the X-ray type outline of the fingers of one experimenter holding a sealed box containing an unexposed film, etc.

For those whose prior beliefs do not exclude the possibility of
dematerialisation, I would draw attention to the occasion when the three principal investigators separately experienced the levitation of a crystal glowing with light, which was placed by unseen means in a translucent bowl in front of us. The crystal then dematerialised in Ellison's grasp, and then rematerialised. This occurred three times in succession, witnessed and commented on in turn by all three of us. It was one of the 30 odd different types of light phenomena we record in the Report.

Another example of materialisation which has been largely overlooked is the appearance, fifty years to the day after the event, of a copy of the Daily Mail for April 1st 1944, the day the newspapers announced the sentencing at the Old Bailey of Helen Duncan under the Witchcraft Act to 18 months' imprisonment.
Duncan was, of course, a famous physical medium, and was said to be taking an interest in the Group's activities. The newspaper was in good condition when I saw it. I persuaded Robin Foy to allow me to have it examined, in the light of the suspicion that it was a more recent reproduction. Experts at the Print Industry Research Association confirmed not only that the paper had been
printed by letterpress, a system long superseded, but on wartime newsprint, which would not have been available anywhere in recent decades.

It is no use saying that this could be a parlour trick. Although, since it occurred before our time, and we did not witness the apport, we did not make much of it in our report — at least, not until challenged on it — no-one has yet been able to explain how a pristine copy of a fifty year old newspaper could appear, even if it had been smuggled in. It would have been sere and yellow
within a few months. Likewise it is futile to argue that all of the phenomena could be written off as a skilful series of hoaxes. That would mean discounting the evidence from scores of people, apart from the SPR investigators, who not simply marvelled at the wholly unnatural appearance and pyrotechnical performances of lights, but experienced intelligent responses by the lights
themselves — jumping from one outstretched palm to another, entering into parts of bodies, irradiating crystals and perspex supports, diving through table tops, energising a ping-pong ball on the carpet so that it moved away from our grasp .... We were not all under some compact to deceive ourselves and others.

Henceforth I'll confine myself to answering specific points, preferably from those who have taken the trouble to study what we have written. There were a great many questions unresolved, and much frustration at the untimely termination of the experiments, and the Group; but that, as someone has ruefully pointed out, is typical in psychical research.


Montague Keen
Click to expand...
 
That's perhaps fine and dandy, but (as with other similar events) what does it really tell us about the dead, or the possibilty of life after death, or of the afterlife itself? That's my main problem with this sort of phenomena (along with EVP, etc.) - why do the dead carry on doing such stuff as the SCOLE experiment shows, when their time and energy would be much better placed trying to show that there is indeed an afterlife? IMHO this sort of thing seems rather inspid - it doesn't really give us any insight into the question of 'the afterlife' at all. The dead, if that's who's responsible for such phenomena, seem curiously simplistic in their approach; that is, these sorts of things come across as more like games rather than a protracted effort to inform the living, with proof, that death is not the end of our existence as individuals.

I'm suprised at why such groups like the SPR continue to be wowed by this sort of thing after all this time when surely the most important question is to get concrete information from their dead informants? Something more tangible and structured is needed, IMHO, if there case is to become more convincing.
 
I would ask you to reduce your percentage-based belief to a healthier 96 %.
Click to expand...

lol! We'll split the difference and call it 98% - that's about all I can manage.

Yes, you're right when you say I can't be 100% sure, but look at it this way: Say one day I wake up and there's an apple on my garage roof. I don't know how it got there, but it's there. Now, if someone tells me a ghost put it there, I'll say that's nonsense. Not because I don't believe in ghosts, but because there are 101 other explanations. Neither do I mean I would stake my life that a ghost didn't put it there, but Occam's razor and all that...

I am very open minded, believe me. But not gullible. If I wasn't open minded I couldn't have sustained an interest for 20+ years and built a collection of 230 volumes (even sat in on a few seances, too). There's nothing I'd like better than to believe (like Mulder says) but seances? It's just not happening for me.

Montague Keen - let's not argue about my appreciation of the facts, nor whether you are asserting ignorance merely as a defense against much warranted scepticism, but let's just look at a couple of the things you say in your post:

(regarding the unopened films) "What emereged from this process, in which no cameras were involved and no opportunity for substitution was possible in virtually all cases"

Where is the proof? Proof could easily be obtained by creating an uncut video of the purchase of a fresh film, the sealing of that film container (with stamped wax, or whatever), transit of the film to the location and the events thereafter, using infra-red if required. Has this simple proof been done? If yes, then I apologise, clearly I am an unjustified in bringing it up. If it hasn't, why not, when such proof would be so very very easy.

"no-one has yet been able to explain how a pristine copy of a fifty year old newspaper could appear, even if it had been smuggled in"

Now, which is more likely? Someone obtained a pristine condition newspaper, or it was apported by the spirits of the dead? Newspaper yellowing is caused by lignin, which is a photochemical reaction - i.e. it needs light. It's simply not true to say a newspaper only 50 years old can't appear as new if it has been stored correctly, in a light-free environment. Again, where is the proof?

The rest of your post - correct me if I'm wrong - attempts to assert validity from the point of view "I don't know how it was done, therefore it must be supernatural." Again, I can't understand this viewpoint. Maybe it was, but (and take no offense) there are a great many things occuring in this world the workings of which you and your colleagues do not comprehend. This insistence to ignore and investigate the obvious is not in any way conducive to learning the truth. For instance, was the newspaper dusted for fingerprints before it was picked up?

And the end of the day, where is your proof? After all that time recording, observing, being surrounded by allegedly paranormal activity, where is the proof? Where are the sceptics who have been converted? Did you claim your $1m from Randi?

And the point about Randi is not flippant. Without getting into a discussion about the aims or character of the man himself, any group that now states "This is paranormal" yet chooses only to share the experience with established believers loses a lot of credibility in my eyes.

But it's been noted I wasn't there and I don't personally know the investigators. Very true. And I wouldn't presume to make any personal judgement about the people involved, but what it boils down to is a person saying that I have two choices:

(1) Believe, without any useful proof, the word of a group of strangers, that they were visited by the dead and given gifts of newspapers and photographs.

(2) Believe that these people are mistaken or lying, or have been the victim of a hoax.

I say again, I don't accuse anyone of lying, but to assume any reasonable person WON'T make choice number 2 on the basis of the equivocal and cliched evidence, even getting all snotty and offended about it, is insulting to all those who call themselves Fortean.
 
One more point - doesn't anyone find it strange that the majority of the phenomenon reported, with allowances for advances in technology, was identical to that reported and disproved by Houdini in his extensive investigations.

Or are the dead so unimaginative they're copying the frauds now?
 
Uuh, there's just 2% between us..

Dear All,

First, many thanks to Mindtrap for managing to get Mr.Keen to respond - did he read the thread, or did you provide him with a summary of the points made ?

And Desperado, we seem to be getting very excited over our respective 2% difference ! We do agree on many points - but again - how do you explain the light phenomena experienced by the S.P.R investigators ?
Yes, there are illusionists who can do amazing things, but Mr.Keen did bring an expert illusionist along ; he was at a loss to explain how any illusionist would achieve such effects. So, how was it done ?
I'm not saying that I think Scole was or wasn't a hoax : all I want is Scole to be investigated thoroughly. I hope that the S.P.R team did their fieldwork properly. But equally - that any criticisms of their fieldwork are well thought out, and equally well evidenced.
i.e ~ If you think social psychology holds the answers, then let's see your research.

Let's not go off half-baked ~ if I'm allowed to so disgracefully mix metaphors.

And we all seem to agree on the frustrating reality of The Scole Group, ( as Jerry B recently pointed out ), that it ultimately failed to provide any real advance in our understanding of the paranormal ; and no ultimate proof of survival.

Let's not descend into mud slinging - let's put our heads together and ensure that our enquiries improve all our research.

I'm off to bed.

Goodnight !

Innes
 
how do you explain the light phenomena experienced by the S.P.R investigators ?
Click to expand...

I don't! :D I probably wouldn't be able to offer a suggestion even if I were sat infront of it with a party hat on.

But then again, ask me how the screen I'm now looking at works and you'd get the same answer. But I know one thing, there are no dead people inside my monitor.

I hope. :blah:
 
Mr. Keen did read this thread and has agreed to check in from time to time. He has asked to me relay his responses as he is, in his words, "pressed for time, apart from being computer illiterate".

I found him actively participating from time to time in another forum in a Yahoo.com group dealing with physical mediumship.

I would like to comment on Desperado's attempt to dispute the paper apport.

He said:

"Now, which is more likely? Someone obtained a pristine condition newspaper, or it was apported by the spirits of the dead? Newspaper yellowing is caused by lignin, which is a photochemical reaction - i.e. it needs light. It's simply not true to say a newspaper only 50 years old can't appear as new if it has been stored correctly, in a light-free environment. Again, where is the proof?"

Now I am certainly no expert in the chemical composition of newspaper or the like but I believe that you missed the point that this paper was actually significant to the proceeedings. I find it hard to believe that a paper of that age was perfectly preserved and acquired for this purpose which coincidentally just happened to be related to this case with respect to survival research and more specifically phsyical mediumship. I think both options are equally difficult to accept.

I even found the "Can you see behind the Moon?" film to be quite striking in this regard as this seems to refer to an earlier effort of a Japanese physical medium to recieve a photograph of the back side of the moon. Spiritography was also a major component in his mediumship. The name escapes me at the moment but I don't believe anyone has even considered this reference before.

The entire proceedings seemed to be full of coincidences and references to other efforts to prove survival. The "cross-correspondences" where a major theme in one of the films.

But perhaps this was all part of the elaborate hoax.

A hoax which I could only wish to duplicate as this would make me a rich man in Hollywood.
 
OK, the newspaper. I didn't ignore the significance of the newspaper content, I just never mentioned it. I will, but first let me just clarify:

Mr Keen originally stated: "It is no use saying that this could be a parlour trick. ...no-one has yet been able to explain how a pristine copy of a fifty year old newspaper could appear, even if it had been smuggled in. It would have been sere and yellow within a few months. "

So Mr Keen was not citing the content of the newspaper as evidence, but the fact it was not yellowed with age. I contested this, provided the explanation that Mr Keen suggested did not exist, and the response was I'd missed the point. I hadn't, but now another point has been raised I'll address that too:

The content of the newspaper. First of all, the newspaper of such condition must have come from a collector. A publisher, library or casual copy would probably be too yellowed. Now, collectors normally have many thousands of items in their possession (hence "collectors") so the choice would be massive. In addition, specific content of newspapers can be quickly located on the internet or in a library. So, assuming that at least one person was "in on" the deception, why would the co-ordination of the paper and the subsequent events be unlikely? I would suggest that they would even be expected.

Furthermore, the suggested gist of the whole "newspaper" event is that something (spirit, whatever) was communicating - trying to provide proof of its existence and sentience - through the apportation of an antiquated, relevant newspaper in mint condition. Yet far superior proof could be obtained so easily! Why didn't the spirit alter one of the words in the headline, for example? That would be much more difficult to explain away. That's even assuming it "had" to apport a newspaper at all. Why not something uneqivocal - a dodo's feather, the Queen's crown, any of ten thousand items that would be impossible to explain in normal terms?

An ancient newspaper in mint condition - a nice touch, but exactly the kind of thing you'd expect a pransker to come up with. Very difficult to explain, cleverly interwoven with events, and when you combine it with words that suggest an as-new condition paper more than a few months old is impossible, it gets people saying "Wow, this is proof!" Except when you examine the evidence, it's not impossible at all. It's very possible. And if, like all good Forteans, we invoke Occam's Razor, then the whole event become worthless as evidence and degenerates to just another unproven anecdote.
 
MindTrap said:
The entire proceedings seemed to be full of coincidences and references to other efforts to prove survival. The "cross-correspondences" where a major theme in one of the films.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but surely all of this effort would be much better suited to just using some plain speaking by the supposed dead? I've still to understand why all these dead people decide to trace a very circuitous route in order to show that they exist and are communicating with us. It all seems like a rather odd way of going about things, when I'm sure a much more convincing and less elaborate proof of their existence may take less effort to engineer. But this sort of thing has been going on for years now and is no closer to saying anything conclusive from the dead about what happens after we die.

The dead seem to be very small-minded and unfocused in their approach, which doesn't bode well for the afterlife from my point of view ;)
 
Re: A great thread

Apologies if my questions are a little simplistic, i'm no expert but am loving the thread, congrats to all :) . A couple of things spring to mind:

Firstly, the date of the Newspaper 1st April 1944 , is that not ringing alarms bells chaps?

Secondly, after a brief Google for info about Helen Duncan it seems she was never tried as a witch:
"First, that Duncan was tried as a witch. She was not; she was, as the prosecution evidence and the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal makes clear, tried and convicted as a fraud."
"All of the campaign statements gloss over the fact that Duncan was convicted of a highly specialised form of fraud and not "witchcraft". None of them mentions her previous conviction for garden-variety fraud in 1933, nor the fact that she stood accused with two others (who appear to go unchampioned) in 1944. The unsuccessful appeal is not mentioned."
from http://www.fidai.clara.net/legals/article.htm

which is contrary to Mr Keens post
"a copy of the Daily Mail for April 1st 1944, the day the newspapers announced the sentencing at the Old Bailey of Helen Duncan under the Witchcraft Act to 18 months' imprisonment. Duncan was, of course, a famous physical medium, and was said to be taking an interest in the Group's activities."

Thirdly, it seems to me, whilst i'm not disputing the 'spooky' things happened why does this automatically lead to communication from or connection to dead people? Could they not have bizarre but earthly and therfore more likely explanations?
Also, of all the billions of dead souls no doubt wanting to comunicate with earth based loved ones what are the odds that something as relevant as Helen Duncan would materialise?

Thanks
 
Sure, Helen Duncan was almost certainly a fraud. But I must admit, I did miss the obvious - 1st April lol! :D

I see now that the prankster made a better job of this than I first suspected!
 
Great rebuttal Edward!

You said:

"Secondly, after a brief Google for info about Helen Duncan it seems she was never tried as a witch:
"First, that Duncan was tried as a witch. She was not; she was, as the prosecution evidence and the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal makes clear, tried and convicted as a fraud.""

To clarify, Mr. Keen never stated that Helen Duncan was tried as a witch but rather that she was sentenced under the witchcraft act. I might add that even the article you quote states this fact.

"Following seances she gave in January 1944, she was arrested and initially charged with offences against the Vagrancy Act, then the statute of choice for the prosecution of frauds in the fields we now know as paranormal; palmists, crystal gazers, astrologers and the like [ 1] . Shortly thereafter, the charges were increased. She, with two co-accused, was charged under the Witchcraft Act 1735 with pretending to raise spirits and went for trial at the Central Criminal Court in April 1944, and also with obtaining money under false pretences. "

The Pulic Records Office has a small article on the subject and seems to confirm that indeed she was tried under this act.

The web site can be seen here http://www.pro.gov.uk/inthenews/witch/witch1.htm

According to the PRO "The jury found her guilty and she was sentenced to nine months detention in Holloway prison. "

Truly though there is a discrepency with regard to how long she was sentenced to prison. As Mr. Keen stated, the article claimed that she had been sentenced to 18 months but the PRO claims that she was only sentenced to nine.

This discrepency could easily be resolved by obtaining the microfilm copy of this paper and verifying the authenticity of Mr. Keen's statements.

Perhaps someone reading this thread would be willing to spend a couple hours tracking this down. This would certainly result in new evidence to support or contradict this case.

Great stuff!
 
"Sure, Helen Duncan was almost certainly a fraud. But I must admit, I did miss the obvious - 1st April lol!

I see now that the prankster made a better job of this than I first suspected!"

Or perhaps the spirits have a grand sense of humor! ;)
 
To clarify, Mr. Keen never stated that Helen Duncan was tried as a witch but rather that she was sentenced under the witchcraft act.
Click to expand...

True, but it's certainly the spin that was applied. When someone hears that a person has been convicted under the Witchcraft act, they'll assume it's for witchcraft. The fraud aspect was... er, selectively... ignored. One has to ask why.

Similar to the way that the paranormal aspect of the newspaper event rode on the purported fact that it was impossible that a 50 year-old newspaper could remain unyellowed. Yellowing occurs within months, Mr Keen stated authoritatively. When I challenged this, Mr Keen admitted he hadn't a clue about the chemical properties or decomposition traits of newspaper, therefore taking away the entire cornerstone of the argument and causing the newspaper to become... well, just a newspaper.

If even a passing critical eye were cast over all the other events, would their mystery crumble away also...?
 
Or perhaps the spirits have a grand sense of humor!
Click to expand...

If all they do is throw coins at people in darkened rooms then I reckon they need something to raise their spirits.

Raise their spirits! Get it?

I'll get me coat...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top