What is the best evidence for Poltergeists?

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Quote:

According to the photographer the four photos were taken at the speed of four frames per second

.

Originally Posted by Aepervius

And ehre is your problem. Now try to make the same conclusion if the time frame were not identical and much shorter.

You are sort of right here. I don't know how reliable the mechanism of the camera was. I suspect it was the maximum speed at that time, because there was even the flash used. But you forgot the trajectory of the mass center.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

But you forgot the trajectory of the mass center.

Could you share your calculations?

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Hey psst, cj.23,:
None of it done yet, I suppose?

Nope, got laid up with chest infection and been bedbound a long while. I'd better plod on with it!

cj x

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Originally Posted by Lusikka
...
Oh, yes, but not so silly after all. Interpretation: the general photographic evidence is of bad quality because even the professional photographer of Daily Mirror was very annoyed – but if you scrutinize the series of the four frames very carefully so you can see clearly the levitation effect. I suspect Maurice Grosse took better documentary photos but I have not seen them.

There is no 'levitation effect' visible, directly or derived, at all.
Your silly 'bad photographs-good photographs' turned out to be silly after all.

If you scrutinize the series of the four (and surrounding) frames very carefully, you can clearly see that the four photographs in question and the others surrounding these four are presented as a contact print sheet of which visible numbering in two strips of film (four frames in question and the preceding strip) is presented as continuous.

Other edge markings are missing ....

If you look further, you can clearly see that the four frames in question suddenly have their frame numbers almost perfectly lined up with the center of the images, whereas the four frames in the strip right before that, do not.
Frame number 30 not lined up with center of image, frame number 31 suddenly very well lined up with center of image.

Now, why is that?

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Nope, got laid up with chest infection and been bedbound a long while. I'd better plod on with it!

cj x

Sorry to hear that.
But I'm glad you manage to pull off other tasks just the same ...

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Nope, got laid up with chest infection and been bedbound a long while. I'd better plod on with it!

cj x

Take care!

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Pup

Uh, yeah. It's pretty obvious. She's going through all the typical "jumping off a bed" motions, legs tucked up at the height of the jump, extended as she starts to land.

How could that possibly fool anyone into thinking she was doing anything other than jumping?

Look at her hair flying out backwards, just as you'd expect from the accelerations of a jump or leap.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by cj.23

I suspect the Guerilla Skeptic wiki editing team (google them)

No need, some of them (at least) are on the forum, and I've met them.

Quote:

took things to far on this occasion

You suspect? Based on what?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

FWIW, going back quite a few pages, I've started to read the book I ordered with two chapters on the Miami poltergeist. I hadn't bothered to read it up until now because, while Lusikka, originally mentioned it as one of the two best pieces of evidence for the existence of poltergeists as soon as I said I'd ordered it he decided that it wasn't all that good, actually, and that he'd rather discuss something else.

Anyway, I'm 2 or 3 pages from the end of the "investigation" and so far there's been nothing but anecdote followed by anecdote. There's nothing remotely convincing. It's also really badly written. The first chapter spends lots of time cataloguing different "events" and then telling you where Julio was at the time. What it's neglected to to at this point, however, is to tell you who Julio is or why you should care where he is when the "events" happen.

I'll read the last couple of pages for completeness sake but, given the lack of actual evidence, and the fact that Julio has actually confessed that he was behind it all, I'm saying that Julio was behind it all.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

No need, some of them (at least) are on the forum, and I've met them.

You suspect? Based on what?

I don't actually know who is in the team these days, and have not checked the edit log as I would not know so maybe just usual sloppy wikipedia editing which plenty of us, self included, are guilty of. The issues with the article are related to quotes taken horrendously out of context, possibly from people who have derived them from second hand sources but then ascribed them to the original sources. The result is weasel words leading to a false impression. I may actually message team GS and suggest they join in cleaning this article up. You can see more on the issues here -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...17#post8719117

cj x

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by cj.23

... The result is weasel words leading to a false impression. ... You can see more on the issues here -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...17#post8719117

cj x

Could you describe what the correct impression would look like?

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

There is no 'levitation effect' visible, directly or derived, at all.
Your silly 'bad photographs-good photographs' turned out to be silly after all.

If you scrutinize the series of the four (and surrounding) frames very carefully, you can clearly see that the four photographs in question and the others surrounding these four are presented as a contact print sheet of which visible numbering in two strips of film (four frames in question and the preceding strip) is presented as continuous.

Other edge markings are missing ....

If you look further, you can clearly see that the four frames in question suddenly have their frame numbers almost perfectly lined up with the center of the images, whereas the four frames in the strip right before that, do not.
Frame number 30 not lined up with center of image, frame number 31 suddenly very well lined up with center of image.

Now, why is that?

Thank you, you have done your homework very well. Just that is always needed. I'll check the numbering but don't have the time now. I hope I can comment soon.

There is still another detail. The first of the four photos is not necessarily from the same jump as the following three. There are changes in the details of the bedclothes. It seems the final analysis is impossible without most of the original films. The photos in the web often don't have the original borders. And it seems the girl has jumped many times, even in the red night-shirt.

There are more pictures here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO5mGpx_7mU

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Thank you, you have done your homework very well. Just that is always needed. I'll check the numbering but don't have the time now. I hope I can comment soon.

There is still another detail. The first of the four photos is not necessarily from the same jump as the following three. There are changes in the details of the bedclothes. It seems the final analysis is impossible without most of the original films. The photos in the web often don't have the original borders. And it seems the girl has jumped many times, even in the red night-shirt.
...

It seems you found part of the answer to the why question. Well done.

The three last continuously numbered images of the four images concerned are not of the same jump either. Image 31 and 33 are similar to each other for the left bedding and images 32 and 34 are similar to each other for the left bedding as well.
All four images have the bedding on the right bed differently.

The four frames in question are not a motor driven series of four photographs.

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

...
There are more pictures here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO5mGpx_7mU

Jumping and laughing girls. Nice for their family album, not for anything else.

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

It seems you found part of the answer to the why question. Well done.

The three last continuously numbered images of the four images concerned are not of the same jump either. Image 31 and 33 are similar to each other for the left bedding and images 32 and 34 are similar to each other for the left bedding as well.
All four images have the bedding on the right bed differently.

The four frames in question are not a motor driven series of four photographs.

You are right, there are clearly alternating pictures from two different jumping episodes. The numbering beneath the four pictures is rubbish. The perforations of the films are not visible. I began calculation of the trajectories too early, before scrutinizing and comparing many pictures.

Position of the beddings and all the small wrinkles in them are impossible to fake if there are many clear photos to compare. It is a pity most parapsychologists are scholars and don't understand the importance of material evidence with its details and small traces everywhere. The same is evident listening for example Richard Wiseman and Chris French in the skeptical camp.

[Daylightstar]

The perforations of the film are actually visible, it's the edge markings of the film which are not visible.
You're quite right with the importance of details. You're probably familiar with the expression: "the devil is in the details".

Originally Posted by Lusikka

... It is a pity most parapsychologists are scholars and don't understand the importance of material evidence with its details and small traces everywhere. The same is evident listening for example Richard Wiseman and Chris French in the skeptical camp.

Could you provide an example of this?

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

The perforations of the film are actually visible, it's the edge markings of the film which are not visible.

You're quite right with the importance of details. You're probably familiar with the expression: "the devil is in the details".

Good work with the films. I have not checked them methodically yet, perhaps I will leave it undone because of the bad quality of the documentaries.

Yes, I love details when they are needed in the detective work I am interested in.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Quote:

... It is a pity most parapsychologists are scholars and don't understand the importance of material evidence with its details and small traces everywhere. The same is evident listening for example Richard Wiseman and Chris French in the skeptical camp.

Could you provide an example of this?

Could you please specify your question? I'll try to answer.

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

...
Could you please specify your question? I'll try to answer.

Could you provide an example of: Richard Wiseman or Chris French evidently not understanding the importance of material evidence with it's details and small traces everywhere?

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Could you provide an example of: Richard Wiseman or Chris French evidently not understanding the importance of material evidence with it's details and small traces everywhere?

Richard Wiseman:
You have possibly read the book written by him, "Paranormality". There he believes all psi-reports can be explained with psychology or tricks. But he uses only very easy and simple examples. You cannot find any details analyzed in more difficult cases, for example reports in the parapsychological literature or details in Rosenheim or Miami cases. You can read more critical comments on the Amazon pages of the book.

Christopher French:
You can listen to his comments on the Enfield case beginning here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbmUs6CIy_U.

He begins with the general criticism that multiple observers influence each other and thus their observations are not independent and the accouts possibly are pure imagination. This is certainly true in many cases. But he gives no details in the Enfield case. This hypothesis is very implausible in simple occurrences, for example movements of furniture. Everybody present can see the movement clearly. And the furniture is in a different place afterwards, everybody can see that, too. There are only two realistic explanations for such accounts, either the phenomena have been true or all observers are lying. As a rule, French never comments any details or tries to make a balanced evaluation of any case.

Wiseman gives his opinion also here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBvs_SzDLfg. There must be good evidence for the poltergeists – and that is quite OK. He has not found such evidence and as an opinion that is also OK. But everywhere it is quite evident he has never even searched it. He always ignores uncomfortable details. He also seems to imagine that psychologists would be able to explain any material effects, at least in poltergeist cases.

The conclusion: both Wiseman and French discuss poltergeist cases only on theoretical level and in principle, as an opinion. I interpret that as an inability to understand the importance of material world with its details. There is naturally also another possibility – they are for skeptical reasons and partly dishonestly ignoring the evidence.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

There are only two realistic explanations for such accounts, either the phenomena have been true or all observers are lying.

Or they could be the victims of deliberate fraud, or they could be honestly mistaken - i.e. they could be misinterpreting their fallible perceptions. On what grounds do you rule out those possibilities?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

There is naturally also another possibility – they are for skeptical reasons and partly dishonestly ignoring the evidence.

Of course there's a counter to this: paranormal enthusiasts deliberately ignoring naturalistic explanations for phenomena, and or paranormal "investigators" consciously or even unconsciously using shoddy controls/protocols for their "investigations."

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Quote:

There are only two realistic explanations for such accounts, either the phenomena have been true or all observers are lying.

Or they could be the victims of deliberate fraud, or they could be honestly mistaken - i.e. they could be misinterpreting their fallible perceptions. On what grounds do you rule out those possibilities?

Perhaps you did not notice the word "realistic" which I used. In empiricism nothing can be ruled out 100%. But when something happens very many times, again and again, then we are very near the final truth.

http://www.skeptiko.com/139-are-ghos...yon-playfair/:

Quote:

… It started with objects being flung around, which I was able to witness. Small things like marbles and pieces of Lego brick and later on, the big stuff started. I saw a heavy armchair sliding along the floor and going over backwards. And no, there wasn’t anyone near it. We had the big sofa in the main room flip over on its face, which is almost impossible for one person to do. You’d need one at each end. And oh dear, it just went on and on. I mean, you name it; we had it.

… I was outside the bedroom late at night when the girls were in bed, hopefully asleep. Something hit the floor and I found it was a marble. It just made a single bang. It didn’t bounce and it didn’t roll. We tried to repeat that and we just couldn’t. You drop a marble, it will not keep still. It will either bounce if it’s a very light one and this one didn’t bounce. The one I heard just was as if somebody had picked it up and put it on the floor by hand as it were. It didn’t move. This happened several times. Other people observed the same thing.

… Then I think it was that night with a book. It was on the mantelpiece. It went out of the room and around a corner. I actually saw that. It got out of the back bedroom and ended up in the hall. It made a turn at about 60 degrees, which is rather hard to explain by normal aerodynamics. It went on and on. I think I made a list of about 30 incidents that I’d witnessed close-up and in perfect conditions.

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Resume

Of course there's a counter to this: paranormal enthusiasts deliberately ignoring naturalistic explanations for phenomena, and or paranormal "investigators" consciously or even unconsciously using shoddy controls/protocols for their "investigations."

Would you, please, give some examples of names of those enthusiasts and details of those shoddy controls/protocols? Otherwise the discussion is not advancing.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Perhaps you did not notice the word "realistic" which I used. In empiricism nothing can be ruled out 100%. But when something happens very many times, again and again, then we are very near the final truth.

Yes and deliberate fraud has indeed happened very many times.
It is much more likely (realistic) than "the phenomena have been true" or "all observers are lying"

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Would you, please, give some examples of names of those enthusiasts and details of those shoddy controls/protocols? Otherwise the discussion is not advancing.

No, I won't. For personal reasons,

But examples of shoddy "investigation" are rife in the popular media; think of a buff dude with spiked hair taunting non-existent entities as one example. Many arguments advanced by paranormal enthusiasts are made from ignorance: "I can't figure how those lights turned on and off, therefore ghosts, 'geists, whatever."

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Yes and deliberate fraud has indeed happened very many times.

As has people being inadvertantly fooled into believing in the paranormal/supernatural by their cognitive biases and fallible perceptions. The Challenge subforum is full of examples.

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Richard Wiseman:
You have possibly read the book written by him, "Paranormality". There he believes all psi-reports can be explained with psychology or tricks. But he uses only very easy and simple examples. You cannot find any details analyzed in more difficult cases, for example reports in the parapsychological literature or details in Rosenheim or Miami cases. You can read more critical comments on the Amazon pages of the book.

Christopher French:
You can listen to his comments on the Enfield case beginning here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbmUs6CIy_U.

He begins with the general criticism that multiple observers influence each other and thus their observations are not independent and the accouts possibly are pure imagination. This is certainly true in many cases. But he gives no details in the Enfield case. This hypothesis is very implausible in simple occurrences, for example movements of furniture. Everybody present can see the movement clearly. And the furniture is in a different place afterwards, everybody can see that, too. There are only two realistic explanations for such accounts, either the phenomena have been true or all observers are lying. As a rule, French never comments any details or tries to make a balanced evaluation of any case.

Wiseman gives his opinion also here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBvs_SzDLfg. There must be good evidence for the poltergeists – and that is quite OK. He has not found such evidence and as an opinion that is also OK. But everywhere it is quite evident he has never even searched it. He always ignores uncomfortable details. He also seems to imagine that psychologists would be able to explain any material effects, at least in poltergeist cases.

The conclusion: both Wiseman and French discuss poltergeist cases only on theoretical level and in principle, as an opinion. I interpret that as an inability to understand the importance of material world with its details. There is naturally also another possibility – they are for skeptical reasons and partly dishonestly ignoring the evidence.

Okay, so as far as French is concerned, he is talking about independent or apparent independent witnesses who discuss both having seen something happening. He says that in the real world they're likely to discuss this with each other and influence each other's account such that they both effectively agree they both saw the same something (a book flying of a shelf etc).

He's not so much talking about a conclusion that a mutually influenced account of having seen something is pure imagination, he's talking about mutually influenced accounts of having seen something.
Whether this resultant account would be pure imagination is really only your conclusion. What French describes is in fact more than extremely plausible.



As far as Wiseman is concerned, he is stating that people's minds play tricks on them and in the case of children there might be an actual trick involved by children wanting to be the centre of attention.
His stated need for (and lack of good) evidence on film or videotape of objects moving when there could not be any possibility of human agency, concerns not so much evidence for poltergeists, but rather such good evidence to rule out those sorts of explanations as the ones he mentioned.

Which uncomfortable details does wiseman ignore?

The youtube videos you linked do indeed not show Wiseman and French to investigate the minute details of the various poltergeist anecdotes.
It seems these items were not intended to show such an investigation.

As far as Paranormality is concerned, I haven't read it. The book however does not appear to me to intend to cover full detailed investigations into poltergeist anecdotes.

The videos you linked to (and likely Paranormality) are certainly no examples of Wiseman or French not understanding the importance of material evidence with it's details and small traces everywhere.
It seems they're all too aware that this material evidence is .... lacking.

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

He's not so much talking about a conclusion that a mutually influenced account of having seen something is pure imagination, he's talking about mutually influenced accounts of having seen something.

Whether this resultant account would be pure imagination is really only your conclusion. What French describes is in fact more than extremely plausible.

Well, if there have not been real psi-phenomena, then everything must be imagination. Naturally the trick explanation is also possible. Evaluating plausibility presupposes discussion about details.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

The videos you linked to (and likely Paranormality) are certainly no examples of Wiseman or French not understanding the importance of material evidence with it's details and small traces everywhere.

It seems they're all too aware that this material evidence is .... lacking.

As a matter of fact there is material evidence, for example the audio tapes. There are many instances where the accounts are confirmed on the tape, for example that when Grosse asked: "Are you having a game with me?". You can hear the commotion following this question here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qBLlruxPPI

You can recognize the younger voice of Grosse. Or perhaps you think that everything was staged? All those 180 hours of audio tapes? All those editors and journalists who tell stories about very clear occurrences when interviewed? Ripping off the gas fire out of the wall is also material evidence, you can see it yourself here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbmUs6CIy_U.

Then there are the recorded curves when a spoon was bent without touching it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbmUs6CIy_U.

Wiseman and French are ignoring all this evidence. It is not possible if they would have understood the importance of material evidence.

[Stray Cat]

Those Channel 4 telly shows are blocked in the UK for copyright reasons and they aren't on the Channel 4 On Demand website, so I can't watch them... but I'm thinking that this "material evidence" you claim will turn out to be as genuine as the photos of the girl jumping off a bed. A photo of a bent spoon is not material evidence that it bent while no one was touching it... at the very least show me video of a spoon bending with no one touching it.... similarly, a gas fire being ripped out of a wall.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

You cannot find any details analyzed in more difficult cases, for example reports in the parapsychological literature or details in Rosenheim or Miami cases.

Well, I've got the book about the Miami poltergeist case. Perhaps you could outline what's so "difficult" about it?

[Peter May]

The best evidence for poltergeist is Ghost Busters.


It is very important to understand the nature of what we see, and not what we imagine we see.

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Well, if there have not been real psi-phenomena, then everything must be imagination. Naturally the trick explanation is also possible. Evaluating plausibility presupposes discussion about details.
...
As a matter of fact there is material evidence, ...

With respect to the immediate above, I could have been clearer. There is 'evidence' in the sense that that is 'stuff' to look at like acounts tapes photographs etcetera.
But no evidence actually supporting the existence of actual poltergeists or evidence such that it rules out (like Wiseman said) human agency.

You have not shown that Wiseman and French do not understand the importance of material evidence with it's details and small traces everywhere.
But, if I understand you correctly, you'd want to see them concentrate on such details.
What you could do is ask them directly and see what response you get.

[Peter May]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Well, if there have not been real psi-phenomena, then everything must be imagination. Naturally the trick explanation is also possible. Evaluating plausibility presupposes discussion about details.



As a matter of fact there is material evidence, for example the audio tapes. There are many instances where the accounts are confirmed on the tape, for example that when Grosse asked: "Are you having a game with me?". You can hear the commotion following this question here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qBLlruxPPI

You can recognize the younger voice of Grosse. Or perhaps you think that everything was staged? All those 180 hours of audio tapes? All those editors and journalists who tell stories about very clear occurrences when interviewed? Ripping off the gas fire out of the wall is also material evidence, you can see it yourself here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbmUs6CIy_U.

Then there are the recorded curves when a spoon was bent without touching it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbmUs6CIy_U.

Wiseman and French are ignoring all this evidence. It is not possible if they would have understood the importance of material evidence.

A question, can taped "evidence" be manipulated, or faked?


It is very important to understand the nature of what we see, and not what we imagine we see.

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

...
You can recognize the younger voice of Grosse. Or perhaps you think that everything was staged? All those 180 hours of audio tapes? All those editors and journalists who tell stories about very clear occurrences when interviewed? Ripping off the gas fire out of the wall is also material evidence, you can see it yourself here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbmUs6CIy_U. ...
Wiseman and French are ignoring all this evidence. It is not possible if they would have understood the importance of material evidence.

Sorry Lusikka, but in that video there is no "Ripping off the gas fire out of the wall" to be seen.

Originally Posted by Lusikka

...
Then there are the recorded curves when a spoon was bent without touching it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbmUs6CIy_U.

Wiseman and French are ignoring all this evidence. It is not possible if they would have understood the importance of material evidence.

Spoon? Which spoon. Sorry, no spoon.
The former student of experimental physics mentions "a piece of metal". He is also showing records of what he calls 'signals' without stating what these 'signals' signify.
He then states a claim that by the end of it she'd successfully bent the metal and that it was with no touch.


All in all, not much in the way of meaningful evidence.

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Sorry Lusikka, but in that video there is no "Ripping off the gas fire out of the wall" to be seen.

Good work again, thank you. You are right, and I did not mean it either. There is evidence after all: in a photo you can see the gas fire still fastened in the wall and in the video you can see the fireplace really is loosened and the gas pipe also. It is rather sure it would have been practically impossible for the children to get it out with such a noise, like an earthquake.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Spoon? Which spoon. Sorry, no spoon.
The former student of experimental physics mentions "a piece of metal". He is also showing records of what he calls 'signals' without stating what these 'signals' signify.
He then states a claim that by the end of it she'd successfully bent the metal and that it was with no touch.

Sorry, I didn't listen to the video again and wrote only from my memory. But in principle a spoon is a piece of metal so that I was not so much in error. The signal came from a strain-gauge. The physics student came from Birkbeck College where John Hasted had earlier used a similar measuring system, he documented the results with a chart recorder.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

All in all, not much in the way of meaningful evidence.

That opinion is a must for a skeptic.

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by Peter May

A question, can taped "evidence" be manipulated, or faked?

Must be a rhetorical question? Certainly most things can be manipulated or faked. But in this case there are some details against it. I remember Grosse had taped 180 hours of the happenings, but didn't find that claim again. Then the voice of Grosse was from younger age, rather difficult to fake in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Peter May

It is very important to understand the nature of what we see, and not what we imagine we see.

Absolutely. Therefore there are needed those devilish details and balanced evaluations of them.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So, no comment on what's so "difficult" about the Miami poltergeist case, then? You tell me to buy the book so that I can understand the case properly, I do, and then you ignore any reference to it.

Honest, sceptical thinking at its finest.

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Good work again, thank you. You are right, and I did not mean it either. There is evidence after all: in a photo you can see the gas fire still fastened in the wall and in the video you can see the fireplace really is loosened and the gas pipe also. It is rather sure it would have been practically impossible for the children to get it out with such a noise, like an earthquake. ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbmUs6CIy_U

Could you be more specific please?
Which photo and where in the video?

What I find funny is that at 8:36 Grosse explains with the gas fire on the table in front of him, that it's so heavy that he can't pick it up.
At 8:46 one of the women states that mister Grosse took it away, took it all out, the next day or ...

Now, 1977 is of course a little while back and Grosse might have been stronger then, but that would make his current remark redundant.
If he wasn't stronger in those days, how could he take it all away, take it all out, if he couldn't lift it?

Until now, I still have not been shown uncomfortable details which, according to you, certain people are ignoring.

Originally Posted by Lusikka

...
Sorry, I didn't listen to the video again and wrote only from my memory. But in principle a spoon is a piece of metal so that I was not so much in error. The signal came from a strain-gauge. The physics student came from Birkbeck College where John Hasted had earlier used a similar measuring system, he documented the results with a chart recorder. ...

Whether it is a spoon, scissors or garden tool or just a piece of metal is not all that interesting. What is interesting is that you conflated your memory of the mentioning of "spoon bender of the time" and "piece of metal".

Originally Posted by Lusikka

...
That opinion is a must for a skeptic.

Well sure, as long as there is not much in the way of meaningful evidence. If the evidence (not claims of evidence) changes, opinions change.

[Peter May]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Must be a rhetorical question? Certainly most things can be manipulated or faked. But in this case there are some details against it. I remember Grosse had taped 180 hours of the happenings, but didn't find that claim again. Then the voice of Grosse was from younger age, rather difficult to fake in my opinion.



Absolutely. Therefore there are needed those devilish details and balanced evaluations of them.

Place your hand on your heart an say, the only answer is YES.
Example. Did you go out last night, well almost, just does not cut any ice.
It's this fundamental difference which poltergiest exist in, the quality of uncertainty which
simply does not exist in the measurable world of Lord Kelvin.



It is very, very important to understand the nature of what we see, and not what we want to see.

Horten flying wings rule, OK.

Peter May.