von Szalay

[Anonymous]

I watched the Jane Goldman Investigates .. Talking with the Dead the other day. ...

In 1936, American photographer Attila von Szalay began experimenting with a record cutter and had moderate success capturing spirit voices on phonograph records. In the 1940s he had better success with a wire recorder. In the 1950s writer Raymond Bayless began a collaboration with von Szalay, and the two men documented von Szalay’s results in an article for the American Society for Psychical Research in 1959. Neither the Society nor the authors received a single response from readers. ...

 

[Spudrick68]

I've just been reading "In Search Of The Unknown" by D. Scott Rogo and of his experiences with von Szalay. Rogo appears to have been a fair minded person, neither gullible or a complete skeptic.

He states that in his opinion, von Szalay was 'the genuine article' and that all attempts to get the parapsychology community to take his gifts seriously were ignored. If this is correct (I've not had time to read anything further yet) then one very rare opportunity to study someone like this was ignored.

It makes me sad and reads like some people closed ranks and attacked in an unscientific way, perhaps because it would piss on their bonfire.

I don't yet know any more about this, but it made me wonder if some people really do want to know the truth.

 

[stu neville]

Rogo appears to have been a fair minded person, neither gullible or a complete skeptic.

Very much so - as an investigator, he had one of the most Fortean of outlooks. Genuinely open-minded, but tempered with a patient and methodical approach. He was passionate about trying to get mainstream researchers to investigate paranormal claims. He died very young, killed by a burglar in his home.

He states that in his opinion, von Szalay was 'the genuine article' and that all attempts to get the parapsychology community to take his gifts seriously were ignored...I don't yet know any more about this, but it made me wonder if some people really do want to know the truth.

As usual, it's all about paradigms and rank-closing, and the prevailing attitude of much of the scientific establishment (nb not science itself.) In theory, science should be about testing propositions with complete impartiality, but in reality it takes a brave researcher to go against the grain of whatever the scientific thought de jour may be. Anyone rocking the boat can find themselves ostracised and generally discredited depressingly quickly, no matter how compelling their findings.

As with many Fort-interest subjects, the establishment line is that there's no proof for psychic phenomena, just as there's no proof of cryptids, etc, and therefore as far as it's concerned such things don't exist, frequently adding the rider that they can't exist anyway (why? usually because they say so.) The sheer weight of anecdotal evidence isn't good enough. Until someone in a white coat says something exists, it doesn't exist - and few white-coats will stick their neck out for the reasons outlined above. Again, this is about scientists, not science - however, as someone pointed out after the "neutrinos faster than light" discovery, the scientific establishment is finally starting to look at just how restrictive dogma can be to genuine progress. Maybe in time said establishment will start to look at the damned data without prejudice. Here's hoping.

 

[Spudrick68]

Thank you for your informative reply Stuneville.

I've been looking on Amazon at Dean Radin too, who appears to be recommended reading.