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

The SCOLE Experiment

"I was also a little perplexed by the comments on light-intensifying tecnology - but there it is. They don't want them used in seances..."

And you didn't see fit to question this? This rang no alarm bells, i.e. "Oh, the one method of technology that would put an end to the controversy and they're saying it can't be used"? Not only that, in my post I clearly explained that the reason "they" give is false. Yet you still persist in your blind belief and you even admit that you're going to ignore this damning piece of evidence.

"It behoves to respect the house rules. Now, anthropologists and other social scientists don't take flak for following a comparable ethos..."

Where is the comparison? Scientists the world over are compelled to present their full data for umpteen levels of peer review from a wide variety of different sources. If a scientist insisted on a framework within which their work must be examined they would not remain a scientist for long. I'd be interested what drove you to make such a comment.

"Furthermore, since when has it been incumbant upon putative disincarnate entities to be supremely well informed?"

One of the prime aspects of mediumship is for the spirits (assume quotes wherever I mention this word) to provide accurate information on anything from Aunty Joyce's long-lost knickers to life after death and super-science. Yet you find nothing odd in the concept that the spirits get confused when it comes to discussing the only item of equipment that could prove or disprove the entire phenomenon.

"Might it not be possible that there may be some substance to the comment..."

No. Absolutely not. With this statement you're even pushing the envelope of the gullible believer. First of all you say the spirit might not have understood what it's talking about. Then you suggest that science may be wrong! This is regardless of the convenient issue that I've mentioned time and time again: How is it that the only piece of equipment disallowed is the one that could prove the phenomenon to be true or false. The rest of the so-called security that is put in place can be circumvented easily by even the most amateur of magicians.
 
I have to say that this case is fascinating simply due to the fact that it is a perfect example of the style of physical mediumship that was popular during the height of Spiritualism.

So, do I find the evidence convincing as proof? No.

However, I do not find myself prejudice toward the possibility as Desperado does.

I do not feel that because these feats seem (at least superficially as we'd have to ask an expert) to be repeatable by a magician that this automatically constitutes fraud.

Let's face it. You either believe that anomolies occur or you don't. If you do then you have to be open-minded to the possibility.

You say that the statements made by the ostensible communicators constitute fraud due to their vague recollections, contradictory stories and seeming desire to avoid any type of critical scrutiny?

Perhaps it does suggest a strong case for fraud, but it certainly does not prove fraud any more than this case proves survival.

A matter of fact, you will find the same worthless and contradictory information from most cases of mediumship and even poltergeist cases (where an intelligent communicator makes itself known that is.)

I have witnessed this myself.

Based on my observations, I believe that something else may be at play here besides fraud and communication with dead people.

Perhaps there is a pyschological condition which manifests itself in this manner. We both agree that PK is a reality. We also both agree that Poltergeists are a legimate phenomena. So, why is it such a stretch to jump from a spontaneous case of PK manifested or projected in the form of an intelligent third party via an unwitting poltergeist medium to this?

Can you honestly claim with certainty that the anomolous effects produced by poltergeists, possessions, reincarnations, macro PK and mediumship are not at all related?

I think that if I were over there within traveling distance, I would make an effort to get a sitting with this medium and judge for myself first hand. This, of course, after I studied all of the currently known methods devised by magicians to create these effects fraudulently.
 
Alexius said:
Now, investigators are guests at such events - they are not needed there, and are not necessarily welcome. It behoves to respect the house rules.
Click to expand...
..such as, erm, not investigating too closely?
ibid
Now, anthropologists and other social scientists don't take flak for following a comparable ethos - why should psychical researchers?
Click to expand...
- because anthropologists on the whole aren't evaluating whether human beings actually exist in the first place. They've got beyond that (or rather shunted it over to philosophers), whereas psychic investigation is still searching for basic answers regarding the nature of the subject. That's why.

Originally posted byMindTrap
I do not feel that because these feats seem (at least superficially as we'd have to ask an expert) to be repeatable by a magician that this automatically constitutes fraud.

Let's face it. You either believe that anomolies occur or you don't. If you do then you have to be open-minded to the possibility.
Click to expand...
Certainly am open to the possibility: am equally open to the notion that while the anomalies themselves exist, there are those that will attempt to replicate them, for whatever type of gain (not just financial, can be ego, kudos, etc). Open-mindedness is a two way street, so one must be prepared to accept that the proof you so deeply desire may turn out fake. But that said, fake proof doesn't mean a fake phenomenon.
 
I'd be inclined to agree with most of MindTrap's post if it wasn't for the following facts. These being that, in no other area but spiritualism...

1) ...are the observers constrained to how they observe the phenomenon to the extent that specific items of equipment are outlawed (not to mention the entire room being pitch dark! LOL!)

2) ...are "paranormal" events consistently produced on demand

3)... are substantial amounts of money charged to view the phenomena

4) ...are credible and thorough observers consistently excluded from the audience in favour of zombie-like believers

5) ...have there been so many frauds uncovered as a percentage of investigated cases (Houdini had a 100% success in proving fraud)

6) ...has the so-called paranormal phenomenon been so easily explained and demonstrated by stage magicians and illusionists

Just because a phenomenon probably exists it doesn't mean the claims of everyone who say they can produce this phenomenon are equally valid.

why is it such a stretch to jump from a spontaneous case of PK manifested or projected in the form of an intelligent third party via an unwitting poltergeist medium to this?
Click to expand...

That's like saying that just because lightening exists you have no problem believing that Storm from X-Men is living in an underground school for mutants somewhere in North America. The two things are so far apart they cannot be related.

There is no relationship between mediumship and any other purported paranormal phenomenon. It stands out there on its own purely as a scam and a joke. I really feel strongly that even discussing the subject lends it more credence that it deserves.

As for the so-called investigators who not only support the practice under the thin guise of research but actually pour scorn on their more professional and critical colleagues - well, IMO these people are a disgrace to the whole gamut of Fortean research and their antics explain why genuine Forteans and the subjects they study are generally ridiculed and treated as a joke.
 
Hm,hm and double hm...

True, anthropologists are not out to prove the existence of the Dogon, but they are out to observe them, and try to figure them out. Which is how I view Psy. Research. That takes patience and sensitivity.

Now, for the record, I am not a Spiritualist. Lovely people, bless 'em, but it's not my thing. But I am willing to take what they say on it's merits and take the pains to think about it. I don't consider that to be 'guillible'.

Nor do I crave proof. I'm happy with hints and intimations. I merely believe it worthy of consideration.

So, communicators have a thing about infra-red? Very well; rather than snarling 'That's shite' let's take it on board and move on. All rather perplexing, but we are not afraid of perplexity, are we, now?

Me, I'm into the philosophical angle. If x is the case, then what? Notice the 'if', and the enthymemic 'and providing that it is not all a delusion, scam or ruse of the Archon' clause. Many may not go so far as to hazard that for fear of 'freak pointing', but not I. D***head I am ;)

Back into the discussion - actually, I think the precautions taken where reasonable, given the circumstances. The investigator had little control over the proceedings, but checked out what he could. Fraud is possible, but by no means certain. As can be said of the pretty much everything in the field. But...let's let the data accumulate, let's find a way around the obstacles and let's indulge ourselves and have a good hard speculate.

Benefit of the doubt, chaps, benefit of the doubt :)
 
So, communicators have a thing about infra-red? Very well; rather than snarling 'That's shite' let's take it on board and move on. All rather perplexing, but we are not afraid of perplexity, are we, now?
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but I can't help thinking you're still missing something. You say "infra-red" like it might be something emitted into the air, something tangible produced by the infra-red camera. It's not. The cameras simply detect the infra-red wavelengths that are already there. It's like saying the human eye emits rays in order to see normal light. The fact that the explanation of "damaging rays" was put forwards for the disallowal of cameras is therefore totally damning. The only thing that perplexes me about this is that how people cannot see that it's a clear case of fraud. What is there to be open-minded to? What is there to investigate? IMO yes, it is shite. What other explanation is there?
 
What I thought most wanting for explanation was the fact that all of the precautions were placed on the medium himself.

Now if I recall correctly, there were some 14-16 people present in addition to the medium which included the medium's wife and a mysterious character named "Paul" which is touted as the seance leader.

So they placed all of these restrictions on the medium but the only real mention of restrictions being placed on the associates of the medium are the following.

"The remaining physical phenomena did not appear to me to be susceptible to any normal explanation, considering that hand-holding (despite Eusapia Palladino’s purported skill in hand-substitution) effectively ruled out those closely associated with the medium: Bianca and Paul, as well as DF.
"

This is what I have a problem with. Of course all of the participants are suspect in this case.

If I were Mr. Keen, I would request attendance to another seance, but this time with much stricter controls placed on the participants.
 
Agreed, all this talk of IF as if it where some breed of death ray is silly (as very well I know, Desp, you scamp ;) ). Still, more than one way to skin a cat. There are alternatives.

As for crowd control - yep, it looks bad, especially if you know the scams. However, here we run up against Innis's 'shyness' factor. Pain in the arse though it is, ambience really does seem to be a factor, and handcuffing & throat miking the good folks may not be conducive. As always, we seek the happy mean & patience, ingenuity and a sense of humour are a must.

Another thing; if you peruse the psychic press, you'll find that Spiritualists are a little pissed off with being tied in a sack and prodded. In the end, we have no right to know what they do, and they feel no burning desire to enlighten us (for the most part). Another good reason to walk softly.
 
...and they feel no burning desire to enlighten us
Click to expand...

But they do feel a burning desire to take money from the grieving and the gullible - er, I mean the "open-minded". It's sometimes difficult to say whether the stench surrounding these people is fish, bullshit or simply the aroma of used banknotes... Mmmm. Probably a mixture of all three.
 
Good point, well made - if true. But it is not. The majority do it for kicks.

Of course, there are other motives for fraud - prestige within the small, small pond, loneliness, spite; sometimes the well-meaning but misguided desire to 'prove' to others what they already know. However, a proportion (a significant proportion, in my limited experience) are well balanced folk with nothing in particular to prove or gain.

Don't take my word for that - check it for yourself.

We tend to get defensive when 'fraud' is an issue - I really don't see why. Actually, I do - the fear of humiliation. But it is all a little sad - if somebody tells me my wife is in hospital, I rush over and it is all a fib, they are the twat, not me. So it seems with assertions of the remarkable - if somebody says they speak with spirits, no shame in finding that marvellous and wanting to know more. If they are lying - well, their weakness of character is their own reward (as is our pointing it out to the world).

Credulity s accepting everything on face value. Incredulity's rejecting everything on face value. I advocate being neither, as both are deeply unfashionable

:)
 
Alexius said:
Good point, well made - if true. But it is not. The majority do it for kicks.

Of course, there are other motives for fraud - prestige within the small, small pond, loneliness, spite; sometimes the well-meaning but misguided desire to 'prove' to others what they already know. However, a proportion (a significant proportion, in my limited experience) are well balanced folk with nothing in particular to prove or gain.

Don't take my word for that - check it for yourself.

We tend to get defensive when 'fraud' is an issue - I really don't see why. Actually, I do - the fear of humiliation. But it is all a little sad - if somebody tells me my wife is in hospital, I rush over and it is all a fib, they are the twat, not me. So it seems with assertions of the remarkable - if somebody says they speak with spirits, no shame in finding that marvellous and wanting to know more. If they are lying - well, their weakness of character is their own reward (as is our pointing it out to the world).

Credulity s accepting everything on face value. Incredulity's rejecting everything on face value. I advocate being neither, as both are deeply unfashionable

:)
Click to expand...

I agree but ....

The frauds, the high profile, high money frauds, help build a world where credulity is reinforced. The sad thing is that people making truely absurd claims are given "air time". I don't really see how this level of open minedness advances the human condition.

On Scole for a moment. There are commonly available devices that image warm bodies. They are commonly used by fire departments for locating people in smoke filled buildings. They work very well indeed. They also require zero incremental radiation.

The lack of their use at Scole raises red flags about the competance of the researchers. If such devices are rejected by the mediums, it is a killer regarding their abilities.
 
True enough, imaging devises are available that do not emit death-rays, and it is a pity the point wasn't put to the communicators at Scole.

However, I don't think the absense of absolute certainty on the movements of the sitters delivers the coup de grace to the case. It does leave some things hanging in the air, but not everything.

The thing about Scole is that so much occured that it is not really possible to make blanket judgements one way or the other. For instance, the Rachmaniov recording: true, on face value, the recording is a little fishy but it's relevence to Maurice Keen was not. Accepting Keen's word that he had neither spoken of nor hinted at the importance of the piece to anybody involved, the chances of that piece being correctly selected from the canon of Western Classical music in response to a request for proof of a personal nature is rather slight.

Overall, a fascinating but perhaps inconclusive case. But, the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation are exceedingly instructive, and the whole corpus of phenomena there runs the gamut - everything bar the kitchen sink. All in all, a landmark by any standard.

As for open mindedness advancing the human condition....since when was intellectual subtlety and generosity a dead loss? As I said, let the frauds (particularly the nasty manipulative ones) be exposed - but let's not let them poison the well for us.
 
Originally posted by Alexius
True enough, imaging devises are available that do not emit death-rays, and it is a pity the point wasn't put to the communicators at Scole.

Yes. It is a pity, too, that these silly oversights have a way of creeping up on research in this area. Better question is why did the researchers simply not deploy the technology?

However, I don't think the absense of absolute certainty on the movements of the sitters delivers the coup de grace to the case. It does leave some things hanging in the air, but not everything.

I think that there is no certainty at the moment. It certainly speaks volumes about the researchers' competence

The thing about Scole is that so much occured that it is not really possible to make blanket judgements one way or the other. For instance, the Rachmaniov recording: true, on face value, the recording is a little fishy but it's relevence to Maurice Keen was not. Accepting Keen's word that he had neither spoken of nor hinted at the importance of the piece to anybody involved, the chances of that piece being correctly selected from the canon of Western Classical music in response to a request for proof of a personal nature is rather slight.

Here is a key point, one should not have to accept anyones word. The design should preclude such a discussion in the first place.

Overall, a fascinating but perhaps inconclusive case. But, the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation are exceedingly instructive, and the whole corpus of phenomena there runs the gamut - everything bar the kitchen sink. All in all, a landmark by any standard.

Only if there was no fraud.

As for open mindedness advancing the human condition....since when was intellectual subtlety and generosity a dead loss? As I said, let the frauds (particularly the nasty manipulative ones) be exposed - but let's not let them poison the well for us.

Well said. Too much theater on my part.
Click to expand...
 
The investigators could have employed the technology surrepticiously; however -

- Ostensively, they were dealing with entitites capable of a high degree of ESP; would have been interesting to see if they would have been caught, but there would have been an excellant chance of their being excluded from further sittings.

As Verbal put it ''How do you shoot the Devil in the back, Agent Kujon? What if you miss?''

- It assumes that they actually had access to that kind of technology. I'd love to take a button-hole IR camera into a seance - however, that doesn't mean I have access to one, or even if I did I could afford to acquire it.

I agree with you - the investigation was not perfect, but that does not necessarily mean the investigators were negligent. There may be other explanations.
 
By the way, this thread has some excellant material, worth perusing...

Check out the letters from Nick Kyle, cos he was actually there.

Check out Innes Smith, cos he is an actýve investigator himself, and has some high quality thoughts to share

And definitely take a look at Maurice Keen's contributions - yep, he actually dived into the cat-fight ;)

And of course every other contributor is sterling, thoroughly good and probably superb in bed :)
 
Alexius said:
And of course every other contributor is sterling, thoroughly good and probably superb in bed :)
Click to expand...

[Blush, you said you wouldn't tell]
 
> >I forward an extract from an email published today by Rupert Sheldrake
> >regarding the sad news of Monty Keen's sudden death.
> >Fotini
> >......................................................
> >
> >There was a big debate on telepathy last night at the Royal Society of
Arts
> >between me and Lewis Wolpert, and eminent British Skeptic. He revealed
his
> >arrogance and ignorance an almost embarrassingly obvious way.
> >
> >Monty and his wife Veronica were in the front row, and in the question
> >period, Monty was making a point when his voice faded, and he lost
> >consciousness. Two doctors in the house tried to resuscitate him, and the
> >ambulance arrived quickly. They did all they could, but he was dead on
> >arrival at the hospital, and probably died almost immediately of a heart
> >attack. He was 79 and had had a triple bypass.
 
A tremendously sad loss - I am sure all who have contributed to the thread will join me in expressing our sincerest condolences to his family and friends.

This thread was formed to discuss the implications of the Scole experiment for the Survival Hypothesis. Montague will now have attained the knowledge he sought to establish.

I hope he stays in touch.
 
Alexius said:
A tremendously sad loss - I am sure all who have contributed to the thread will join me in expressing our sincerest condolences to his family and friends.

This thread was formed to discuss the implications of the Scole experiment for the Survival Hypothesis. Maurice will now have attained the knowledge he sought to establish.

I hope he stays in touch.
Click to expand...

It's Montague. :err:
 
Ah true enough - well corrected - Maurice Keen is an historian.....

Sure Monty would forgive me my foolishness.
 
I got that book way back in the late 90s. Loved it, a deeply fascinating read.:cool:
 
The documentary again, on YouTube and now Netflix -


Techy and I're enjoying this, each having had plenty of weirdness happen to us. :D

We're both saying 'Well I've had THAT happen but THEY'RE faking it!' :chuckle:
 
I watched that video above about the Scole experiment last night. Well it was certainly full of some very positive endorsements from members of the SPR. Which I have to say I was a bit surprised by. It's not very scientific to say 'there can be no way this was faked'. As it all very much smacked of the phenomena of the sort of seances which have been proved to have been people mucking about. I mean they even had one member of the magic circle in there, and we were supposed to take his word that because he couldn't find fakery, then that was proof there wasn't any. People saying 'well I am baffled' isn't really proof of anything.

The makers of the video were naturally on one side of the fence and kept saying stuff about 'excellent scientific evidence' but I don't think they really understand what scientific evidence is (it's not really about just witnessing things with your eyes). In fact what they were claiming, that it was proof of 'life after death' - even if you believed everything shown as paranormal, it still wasn't proof that the Voices and all the rest of it were that at all. If I were an American fundamental Christian I'd put it all down to demons, for example.

Parts of the video were quite sad, they weren't about the Scole experiment but about some people in Italy listening to their dead relatives over an old radio, and a woman in the US who'd lost her son and thought she could hear him saying little phrases using EVP. Which may have been helping them but it was still sad. EVP is really stretching credulity if you ask me. Though not as much as the idea (in the Scole experiment) that a dead person could draw you a diagram of how to set up a video camera. No you can't just film it. You have to use our way.

There was a lot of crazy stuff on that programme but when the lights are always off it's hard to take any of it at face value. And if you invite the SPR in but then don't allow them to investigate in the way they want to (not that this apparently stopped them Believing) - it's a bit of a red flag for me, even as a part-believer in all sorts of weirdness.

I should have a look at the report. The quotes from the SPR people would have been chosen to be enthusiastic of course. Perhaps they put forward more reservations in that? It must be hard not to get swept along by everything when you're in the middle of it, in the dark, surrounded by enthusiastic believers (/possible charlatans).

anyway worth a watch if you've got an hour and a half to while away
 
Jerry_B said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just had a re-read of this thread and this post stands out to me, it's something that's always puzzled me

I read the book a number of years ago, I sit on the fence about how genuine it all was, but if I was in the afterlife and I wanted to convince the world I would think of something much better than this, starting with some simple facts such as name DOB and date of death etc moving to more complicated things, and when my veracity had been proven, move on to more details about the afterlife the process etc, but what we get is just banalities and parlor tricks
 
Robbrent said:
Just had a re-read of this thread and this post stands out to me, it's something that's always puzzled me

I read the book a number of years ago, I sit on the fence about how genuine it all was, but if I was in the afterlife and I wanted to convince the world I would think of something much better than this, starting with some simple facts such as name DOB and date of death etc moving to more complicated things, and when my veracity had been proven, move on to more details about the afterlife the process etc, but what we get is just banalities and parlor tricks
Click to expand...
I have no idea who, or what, the communicators are. I am reasonably convinced of the paranormality of the Scole events, but I really doubt that it was "spirit scientists" trying to establish contact with the living. For a start, everyone living ends up dead, so I don't see why the dead would need to convince the living of continued existence, when we'll all find out soon enough anyway. There is some sort of deception going on, and I don't mean hoaxing, I mean the communicators are not revealing their true motives. More of Joe Fisher's hungry ghosts... they build up the human participants into some sort of dependency, then shut them down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top