Correction Note re EvaC Photo

[SteveGrenard]

Here are two website articles on this subject worth reading:

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/phantoms.htm

www.luigigarlaschelli.it/Altrepubblicazioni/moulds.htm


The following e-mail has been received regarding the photograph of EvaC Randi chose to use in a recent commentary, further attributing comments etc etc to Keen which were not correct in reference to this particular photograph. It is my personal belief that the photo of EvaC Randi used may have been typical of re-enactment photos staged by photographers of the time and therefore they are as silly as they often look to us. This bears some investigation. Even Tom's photo2 resembles a re-enactment. I know for example that most of the very realistic wildlife footage we see today on television is in fact staged. I dont think it is so far fetched that the practice, less technically adroit, dates back to the earliest days of photography.

------------------------------------------------

Here is what Tom Jones wrote regarding this:

As Montague has just pointed out, it was I, the
webmaster for www.survivalafterdeath.org, who wrote
the remarks accompanying the Eva C image, not
Montague. Furthermore, those remarks referred to a
different image of Eva C than the one included on
Randi's website. The correct image to which I wrote
the original comments can be found at
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/photographs/notzing/2.htm

I have highlighted these mistakes to Mr Randi and he
has agreed to correct them. He did not say when, but I
guess he might mention something in his next issue of
'Swift' on Friday at www.randi.org.

Incidentally, for those interested in Montague's
account of the David Thomspon sitting, I've now added
the 8 images which Montague refers to during the
article.
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/thompson.htm

Thomas

[thaiboxerken]

" I have reproduced only one photograph from a collection of five that were taken at the same experiment using five different cameras. Such procedures, which were common practice in Prof. Schrenck-Notzing's experiments, greatly help to eliminate the possibility of fraud"

LOL. So 5 cameras taking a picture helps to eliminate the possibility of fraud?! That is hilarious. I guess if I attached a doll to the back of my neck and had pictures from 5 different angles of it, that means it's ectoplasm.

This guy must be a genius.

[Paladin]

The Eva C picture is not appreciably different from the photo Randi showed in his commentary. I agree that it is most likely a staged photo. Fakery and retouching which in days gone by might have convinced someone are readily apparent to us now. The workmanship is quaint, just ain't that good, and we've all seen much better.

Keen's photo series and description of the seance -- I'm sorry, but the photographs prove nothing. The one in which they point out the absence of a cut on Keen's thumb -- I notice that his hand is at an angle which would block the view of the cut. As for the rest of the sceance -- well, it's a mildly interesting tale, but one must take the possibility of misdirection into consideration.

[dharlow]

As far as I know, those photographs of Eva C (pseudonym for Martha Berarde) are from the actual seances, and not staged. Some photographs that did suggest possible fraud, taken by Geley, were not publiblished until sometime later by Lambert.

Despite the pitiful appearance of these "manifestations", which Berard's researchers frankly acknowledged themselves, her case is more complicated than it would first appear. E.J. Dingwall, a prominent member of the Magic Circle, aptly summarized the difficulties in a paper entitled "The Hypothesis of Fraud", in which he wrote, " it may be tought that the case against the phenomena is so strong that the subject may at once be dismissed. Such a standpoint would in my opinion be entirely mistaken and would show clearly that its supporter had not the smallest appreciation of the difficulties..."

This case is typical of many in this field, in which critics hastily cast judgement without reading the actual research. Hence my signature.

[Paladin]

Agreed, it's unwise to rush to judgment; it is equally unwise to allow uncertainty to lend credence to the impossible.

[dharlow]

Well, if something is impossible, no credence can be lent to it. Nothing can, of course, be deemed impossible, only highly improbable, and despite the seemingly incredible conjecture put forth in the case of Eva C, it does derive corraboration from independent observers, some of whom were skilled in the detection of trickery.

[thaiboxerken]

It's a BS claim. They staged the appearance of these apparitions. I doubt they could do such a thing with adequate protocols, including IR photography. Sorry, their claim just doesn't hold any worth.