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

The Enfield Poltergeist

titchagain said:
They got lots of evidence, from the dodgy, Janet "levitating" photos to the interesting,the pictures of the curtains twisting while both girls are in bed, to the compelling, the knocks that have been tested and show a totally different sound pattern to human knocks.
Click to expand...
Great, so this evidence is conclusive then?
Still photos of something that supposed to be moving, and knocks that are supposed to be different than human knocks.
Having looked at the photos, the bed is up against the wall where the curtains are, and the girls arm has definitely moved and her blankets are pushed off of her.
That's not terribly impressive, especially when we already know for certain from both parties the girls were capable of and did commit hoaxes that fooled the main investigators of the case.
In the case of the knocks, well color me skeptical on that claim. It comes from a single researcher who published in the Journal of Psychical Research, who's standards are loose.
Does anyone else agree with his findings? Have his claims been compared to others?
 
Shadowsot said:
Great, so this evidence is conclusive then?
Still photos of something that supposed to be moving, and knocks that are supposed to be different than human knocks.
Having looked at the photos, the bed is up against the wall where the curtains are, and the girls arm has definitely moved and her blankets are pushed off of her.
That's not terribly impressive, especially when we already know for certain from both parties the girls were capable of and did commit hoaxes that fooled the main investigators of the case.
In the case of the knocks, well color me skeptical on that claim. It comes from a single researcher who published in the Journal of Psychical Research, who's standards are loose.
Does anyone else agree with his findings? Have his claims been compared to others?
Click to expand...
From the updated "this house is haunted"
"So either everybody who provided the evidence for all the 500 cases, including this one, was deluded, lying or just misreported, or as our physics professor colleague John hasted was quite willing to admit , our laws of physics need to include at least one extra dimension of space.
You asked where is the evidence, it's out there, but it's up to every individual whether to believe or disbelieve
 
Last edited:
Although can't find them I have read, for example, that ESP has been illustrated often enough under laboratory conditions be to be real effect, yet because it can't be replicated easily then many within science refuse to accept it as a real effect that needs to be studied further. Likewise, perhaps there have been some studies under laboratory conditions which show psychokinesis.

The eternal problem is still with us with of physical sciences demanding concrete physical evidence. Perhaps another way forward needs to be found. There may well be a totally rational explanation for such phenomenon but I can't help feeling that using the scientific method is like trying to measure water with a ruler.
 
Whenever topics turn to a discussion of the need for 'conclusive evidence' on FTMB, I find myself musing the nature of forteana. There are some things for which the evidence is virtually conclusive, such as evolution, and some things for which there is not even any anecdotal evidence, such as that giant woodlice mine houmous beneath the surface of Mars. Forteana is perhaps most narrowly defined as putative events for which there is no conclusive evidence but anecdotal evidence. This message board then is a place for discussing how good the evidence is, and the likelihood of it indicating a genuine phenomenon. It doesn't need highlighting that many things discussed here are not represented by evidence adequate for scientific acceptance. We're here to examine precisely those things. Frankly, nor do we need to make excuses for science. It necessarily progresses through conclusive evidence and replication of experimental results.
 
PeteByrdie said:
Forteana is perhaps most narrowly defined as putative events for which there is no conclusive evidence but anecdotal evidence. This message board then is a place for discussing how good the evidence is, and the likelihood of it indicating a genuine phenomenon. It doesn't need highlighting that many things discussed here are not represented by evidence adequate for scientific acceptance.
Click to expand...
Nicely put.

I also see Forteana, for the most part, as that which is based on anecdote, so it follows that the witnesses are part of the phenomena. For me, that makes much Forteana that which exists in the mind of the witness(es).

I suspect there is very little Forteana which exists entirely outside of peoples' minds and if the scientific method took that properly into account, many of our mysteries would vanish like smoke.
 
PeteByrdie said:
... Forteana is perhaps most narrowly defined as putative events for which there is no conclusive evidence but anecdotal evidence. This message board then is a place for discussing how good the evidence is, and the likelihood of it indicating a genuine phenomenon. It doesn't need highlighting that many things discussed here are not represented by evidence adequate for scientific acceptance. We're here to examine precisely those things. Frankly, nor do we need to make excuses for science. It necessarily progresses through conclusive evidence and replication of experimental results.
Click to expand...

I agree with Coal - nicely put!

In addressing Fortean reports, the first problem is to consider whether the observation has merit as evidence of something odd or extraordinary happening. As Coal pointed out, the anecdotal nature of most such reports means the observer is an intrinsic and critical element in the evidentiary merit-assessment. Critically 'scrubbing' the report for merit inevitably involves evaluating the observer and his / her observation(s) as well.

This front end 'scrubbing' is all too often taken to represent a diehard skeptic's defense of a conclusion rather than a reasonably cautious testing of the report itself. In some cases the former impression is not just warranted, but blatant. The latter, more reasonable, version can be difficult to distinguish from the former. Combined with the need to evaluate the observer as well as the observation, this explains why observers sometimes turn defensive and retreat in short order.
 
EnolaGaia said:
Combined with the need to evaluate the observer as well as the observation, this explains why observers sometimes turn defensive and retreat in short order.
Click to expand...
^this^, even when you know much of what you experience can't be relied upon, it's hard to accept.
 
titchagain said:
From the updated "this house is haunted"
"So eitdis everybody who provided the evidence for all the 500 cases, including this one, was deluded, lying or just misreported, or as our physics professor colleague John hasted was quite willing to admit , our laws of physics need to include at least one extra dimension of space.
You asked where is the evidence, it's out there, but it's up to every individual whether to believe or disbelieve
Click to expand...
If I were to make a claim, one requiring some major overhauls of what has otherwise been demonstrated to be reliable, you'd need something better than a single paper making claims about knocks and dubious reports.
I like this sort of stuff, but it does get to be an issue when cases that are later shown to be complete frauds are indistinguishable from proposed true events.
 
Spudrick68 said:
Although can't find them I have read, for example, that ESP has been illustrated often enough under laboratory conditions be to be real effect, yet because it can't be replicated easily then many within science refuse to accept it as a real effect that needs to be studied further. Likewise, perhaps there have been some studies under laboratory conditions which show psychokinesis.

The eternal problem is still with us with of physical sciences demanding concrete physical evidence. Perhaps another way forward needs to be found. There may well be a totally rational explanation for such phenomenon but I can't help feeling that using the scientific method is like trying to measure water with a ruler.
Click to expand...
I've seen these papers, the eternal problem is that in order to get these results the methods we use in every other attempt to establish there is a "there" to be discovered and not bias and data manipulation are relaxed.
The issue I have with this is its readily dismissed with something like Creationism, or flat Earth theorists. Where it's entertaining sure but accepted as wrong.
But when it's something that's liked or wanted to be true lee way is given.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Please could you explain that?
Click to expand...
Can't link directly to the paper, but put the following into Google.
THE ACOUSTIC PROPERTIES OF UNEXPLAINED RAPPING SOUNDS.
  • Source: Journal of the Society for Psychical Research . Apr2010, Vol. 74 Issue 899, p65-93. 29p.
  • Author(s): Colvin, Barrie G.
Sorry, don't have a plain text option on mobile.
 
Coal said:
I also see Forteana, for the most part, as that which is based on anecdote, so it follows that the witnesses are part of the phenomena. For me, that makes much Forteana that which exists in the mind of the witness(es).
Click to expand...

Well put, I'd agree with that entirely.
 
Shadowsot said:
Can't link directly to the paper, but put the following into Google.
THE ACOUSTIC PROPERTIES OF UNEXPLAINED RAPPING SOUNDS.
  • Source: Journal of the Society for Psychical Research . Apr2010, Vol. 74 Issue 899, p65-93. 29p.
  • Author(s): Colvin, Barrie G.
Sorry, don't have a plain text option on mobile.
Click to expand...

Searching for this the result that produces the fullest version actually is a link back to here, and a post by Ulalume. http://www.sgha.net/library/Unexplained_Rapping_Sounds.pdf
 
Coal said:
Still interesting nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Oh sure, that the experience is a mental one doesn't invalidate the experience. Most of my best experiences happen in my head.
So are most of my friends.
 
I don't have time now to read the paper, but a quick look at the references is a unusual in my experience. In a 23 page piece, there are 28 references. All but one of them is from the paranormal literature, and this appears to be from a popular publication, 'The Master Handbook of Acoustics'.

The range of comparison sounds used are

1. Knuckle tapped on a brick wall. 2. Knuckle tapped on a plasterboard wall. 3. Teaspoon tapped on a crystal glass. 4. Playing Middle C on a piano. 5. Rubber hammer striking a wooden desk. 6. Rubber hammer striking a hard rubber object.

http://www.sgha.net/library/Unexplained_Rapping_Sounds.pdf

I don't know.
 
titchagain said:
They got lots of evidence, from the dodgy, Janet "levitating" photos to the interesting,the pictures of the curtains twisting while both girls are in bed, to the compelling, the knocks that have been tested and show a totally different sound pattern to human knocks.
Click to expand...


Hi titch,

Nice to see my favourite thread active gain.

Point by point, I see you're acknowledging how dodgy the 'levitation' shots are, but what is it about the twisting curtains that's significant? Bear in mind it's been a while since I've read this in detail.

As to the knocks and them having been examined and found to be unusual in their structure. That sounds as if they're trying to back up their claims with objective science. The price of which is to produce their work for review. The paper we've seen is from 2010, so it's not that one. We need to see it if we're going to factor in it's results. I'm not saying that it's your responsibility to provide it, but it is theirs if they're citing it.
 
Coal said:
Still interesting nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Shadowsot said:
Oh sure, that the experience is a mental one doesn't invalidate the experience. Most of my best experiences happen in my head.
So are most of my friends.
Click to expand...

Fortean phenomena are still very interesting, and the whole point is I think that we don't have a preconceived source for them, but to question their cause.

In this case though, there's a darker side to it all, and as much as it being 'interesting' from a Fortean perspective, it's also very illustrative from as a social record. It wouldn't be allowed to happen today. Personally, I think Grosse and GLP exploited what was a vulnerable family for their own personal ends. Janet was admitted to the Maudsley Hospital on several occasions, and today judge for yourself how well it all seems to have turned out. Grosse and GLP on the other hand seem to have done quite well out of it. I don't mean financially, but I think it's quite easy to imagine what the appeal was for the recently bereaved Grosse, and the paranormal investigator GLP.
 
oldrover said:
Point by point, I see you're acknowledging how dodgy the 'levitation' shots are, but what is it about the twisting curtains that's significant
Click to expand...
Errrrm being all scientific about it, it FEELS authentic to me, the same for the pillows flying through the air and especially the picture taken just after a lego brick has been thrown.

Sure you have to assume everybody in the room is being honest about the circumstances under which the pictures where taken, but I am breaking the habbit of a lifetime and trusting my fellow humans, just this once.


Looking at all the theories being advanced about the lack of evidence , I am throwing my own theory into the ring. The cosmic joker. Using my own limited experiences of the paranormal as a starting point, and going by what has happened to so many ppl over the years, I am beginning to think fortean happenings are some unknown force just messing with us for the lolz
 
To go back a few pages...

I actually got around to watching The Conjuring 2, late last year. A group of us have a Horror Movie Weekend each year for Halloween, and with a couple of us having fortean interests we added that one to the list upon hearing it existed.

Our expectations weren't *high* and to be brutally honest the movie delivered no surprises there.

This is a piece of bizarre 'Hollywood Historical' movie which pays little respect to the 'true story' it tries to portray.

It also really jars considerably, as it switches between the tone of the schlocky US based scenes - shot as cliched Hollywood popcorn horror - and the dingy British scenes which would feel more at home in a Ken Loach film, with their far less ostentatious performances.

And you can't help but feel that this shift between the fictional and then a very real case is somewhat distasteful. I mean aesthetically some of the recreation of the Enfield house is scarily authentic to the photographs we all know well, and several scenes are visually quite faithful to real video and photographic footage.

But the crude Hollywood embellishment and stretch of truth thereafter is just plain wrong. These are events which happened in the lives of real people and to convert them into this bizarre US box office horror movie is a bit sick really. I don't know if the Hodgsons had to sign off on this in any way, but it sits really badly with me.

At least when it comes to Hollywood's obsession with Amityville that was already a highly embellished, more fiction than not, story from its inset. To address the Enfield case in a similar manner seems far more messed up to me.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree, CI, to invent a bunch of shite about a killer demon nun was bad taste in the extreme, in fact the whole thing was just wrong, and not only the poor historical details (a massive council house with a cellar that still looks like a tip inside, quite unlike Mrs Hodgson's neatly kept little home, for example). For what it's worth, Janet is interviewed on the disc release in a featurette, and seems to endorse the whole thing. Amazing what a fat cheque can make people say.
 
titchagain said:
Sure you have to assume everybody in the room is being honest about the circumstances under which the pictures where taken, but I am breaking the habbit of a lifetime and trusting my fellow humans, just this once./QUOTE]

.
Click to expand...

I think that in this case, probably more than any other instance I can think of, that's a mistake. We've got a definite need to believe in at least one of the main investigators, evidence of fraud or extreme gullibility in at least one of the neighbours/witnesses, I'm thinking of the chap in the Janet on top of the radio pic, significant discrepancies in the police testimony, and two imaginative children
 
oldrover said:
A what sorry?
Click to expand...

I know! The film made up a demon nun that tries to kill the US psychics in the Enfield property, presumably because in real life the story just fizzled out and didn't build to a climax where American religious nuts dramatically vanquish evil. It's getting its own spin-off movie now.
 
GNC said:
I know! The film made up a demon nun that tries to kill the US psychics in the Enfield property, presumably because in real life the story just fizzled out and didn't build to a climax where American religious nuts dramatically vanquish evil. It's getting its own spin-off movie now.
Click to expand...

Wankers. Interesting though that Janet was happy to sign off on this.
 
titchagain said:
part of me says she shouldn't, part of me says she deserves a nice fat pay cheque
Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to prefer to see her with some sort of recompense for what happened. Truthfully though I doubt it was very much for a bit part in a supplementary video segment. I can't see them Hollywood big shots seeing Janet as being much of a hard barginer now.

But it does show one thing, Janet is willing to lie.
 
maybe she thought people will disbelieve her anyway, so it's better to be disbelieved with cash in your back pocket? (this is coming from a person who would gladly betray the government, queen and entire country for a tub of pringles and a bottle of badgers golden glory)
 
oldrover said:
I'd be inclined to prefer to see her with some sort of recompense for what happened. Truthfully though I doubt it was very much for a bit part in a supplementary video segment. I can't see them Hollywood big shots seeing Janet as being much of a hard barginer now.

But it does show one thing, Janet is willing to lie.
Click to expand...
Janet and her sister were paid to loosely endorse the movie.

They never had to say it was accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top