|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
25th May 2003, 04:33 PM | #1 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,135
|
The Scole Experiments
And here I thought physical mediumship was dead. Not so! The Scole experiments are a bunch of experiments done with physical mediums in Scole, UK. All the usual stuff with apports, moving lights, materializations, projecting pictures onto film, you name it. They even published a book in 1999.
http://www.psisci.force9.co.uk/ I can't find much in the way of critique, perhaps because it is so recent. There was some talk that Colin Fry cheated during one of the sessions. Does anyone have any interesting information about this? ~~ Paul |
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
25th May 2003, 04:57 PM | #2 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,135
|
I found this article by Montague Keen about the Scole experiments:
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/ar...keen/scole.htm He repeats many times that the Scole mediums have a scrupulously clean record. How does that fit with the story about Colin Fry cheating? ~~ Paul |
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
25th May 2003, 05:54 PM | #3 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,135
|
From Keen's paper:
Quote:
~~ Paul |
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
25th May 2003, 06:34 PM | #4 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 321
|
Paul,
Colin Fry was not one of the Scole mediums. Two posters on this board, Mark Tidwell (dogwood) and dharlow, have read the voluminous Scole Report, and thus have a knowledge base from which to speak about this topic. Mike |
25th May 2003, 07:26 PM | #5 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 321
|
My current view of Scole:
I have read a number of articles about Scole and have witnessed debates on this topic by Mark Tidwell and others on the TVtalkshows board. I have not read the official Scole Report and thus have more to learn about Scole. My current opinion of it could change. I feel that certainly *some* controls were introduced into the Scole seances but the controls did not go far enough. Given the controls that *were* in place, I feel that some of the phenomena are difficult to find a mundane explanation for. But unless other groups can replicate the Scole phenomena using more rigorous controls (such as infrared cameras), I will most likely remain intrigued but ultimately unconvinced by Scole. As Paul points out though, the existence of Scole certainly indicates that claims of spectacular contemporary physical mediumship *do* exist, and that these claims are not simply seen in the long ago past, as is sometimes stated by some posters on this board. |
25th May 2003, 07:49 PM | #6 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 321
|
See the link below for a summary of a presentation on Scole by David Fontana, one of the SPR investigators. The very last section of it discusses the phenomena the investigators witnessed in relationship to the controls employed.
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/con...id=91&pgtype=1 |
26th May 2003, 12:35 PM | #7 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brane 6, Brahman's Dream
Posts: 3,002
|
I seem to remember putting the book down after the first three or four chapters, because the controls just seemed completely inadequate. It was a while ago I read it now, so it's hard to think of proper examples.
One bit I think I remember was to do with one of the mediums (media?) going to bed with a headache, and therefore remaining in the house but unaccounted for all night, while things flew about and disappeared and stuff. Just various things like that that seemed a bit suss. Another example was - and I'm struggling to remember here - when the controls protecting the sealed camera film were described, there was a clear window of opportunity for one of the group to swap it for another one. I wish I could remember properly, but the main thing I remember is being quite disappointed that it wasn't as 'experimental' or as well controlled as was claimed. But then I didn't read it all, and I can't double-check it or find examples because I've lent my copy out. I'll try and get it back. |
26th May 2003, 12:53 PM | #8 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,135
|
The fact that the experimenters agreed not to have infrared cameras, and apparently no night-vision goggles either, is just to hard to believe. Come on, folks!
~~ Paul |
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
26th May 2003, 12:53 PM | #9 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 321
|
dharlow and Mark Tidwell,
Since both of you have read and own the Scole Report, do you recall or can you cite the incident Nucular describes concerning one of the mediums going to bed with a headache? Regarding the films, I recall reading discussions regarding potential opportunities for fraud with one or more films. Mark, didn't you discuss this one time on tvtalkshows? Mike |
26th May 2003, 01:06 PM | #10 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 321
|
Paul,
A question for you. If you had been one of the Scole investigators and had been denied the use of infared cameras, would you have refused to conduct the investigation on principle? Or would you have investigated anyway, taking note of what controls *were* permitted, and trying to determine what was going on? Mike |
26th May 2003, 01:29 PM | #11 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,135
|
Ooh, Mike, that's a tough question. If it were me, I would have tried to sneak in night-vision goggles. And surely I would have snuck in a flashlight to turn on at some opportune moment.
But if were me reincarnated as a psychic investigator, with a different set of scruples, I might think that the request was just too restrictive and refuse to go along with it. I just ordered the book. A guess here: The Scole people either knew the investigators beforehand, or used the first couple of sessions to gauge just how credulous they were. Then, when they found out that the investigators were going to follow the rules, they pulled out the cool stuff. Any mention of a fifth or sixth Scole collaborator to move around the room and do the tricks? Did they check for a false wall in the basement? Put a special lock on the door to the stairs so no one could enter? Why do psychic investigators always carry a big gun and shoot themselves in the foot with it? ~~ Paul |
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
26th May 2003, 01:34 PM | #12 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 321
|
Paul,
I hope you ordered the official Scole Report from the SPR and not the popularized book entitled The Scole Experiment by the Solomons. Mike |
26th May 2003, 01:37 PM | #13 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 321
|
Paul,
Perhaps dharlow and Mark Tidwell can answer your questions about collaborators, false walls, and special locks. Mike |
26th May 2003, 02:25 PM | #14 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 26
|
RE: Scole experiments
Paul,
See http://members.lycos.co.uk/colinfry/index.html for info on Colin Fry... I have spoken to Colin about this and in fact published his response to some questions I asked him on this forum. If you wish to see it let me know and I'll dig it out of the archives. Dru.. |
__________________
www.theskepticexpress.com A credulous mind . . . finds most delight in believing strange things, and the stranger they are the easier they pass with him; but never regards those that are plain and feasible; for every man can believe such. Samuel Butler, Characters (1667-9) |
|
26th May 2003, 02:33 PM | #15 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 321
|
Paul,
Regarding false walls. One argument I've heard made is that the Scole group would have had to have some elaborate equipment concealed in the seance room in order to fraudulently produce some of the phenomena they did. Such equpiment was never found by the investigators, and when the Scole group traveled to other countries and held seances, the rooms in which the seances were held were not conducive to concealing such equipment, even if the Scole group had been secretly able to smuggle it into these rooms. And apparently the group was monitored on these trips by the investigators. Mike |
26th May 2003, 02:43 PM | #16 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 26
|
|
__________________
www.theskepticexpress.com A credulous mind . . . finds most delight in believing strange things, and the stranger they are the easier they pass with him; but never regards those that are plain and feasible; for every man can believe such. Samuel Butler, Characters (1667-9) |
|
26th May 2003, 02:44 PM | #17 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 321
|
The link given by Druid says that Colin Fry was accused of producing fradulent ectoplasmic phenomena in seances at Scole. Scole is a town, and Fry could well have held seances in the town of Scole. I still have never heard that he was connected with the Scole experimental group being discussed on this thread. The mediums in the Scole group were Alan and Diana Bennett, and the other members of the group were Robin Foy and his wife, Sandra.
And it was also claimed by the Scole group that their phenomena did not involve the use of ectoplasm. |
26th May 2003, 03:46 PM | #18 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,135
|
Mike said:
Quote:
~~ Paul |
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
27th May 2003, 02:44 AM | #19 |
Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 177
|
Scole
Interestingly, the Scole experiments are one of the areas that need to be rebutted to win the Zammit challenge. The Noah's Ark Report into the Colin Fry Incident is not in the public domain according to Fry. How can anyone have a realistic chance of providing a rebuttal to this issue when crucial information is being repressed? I wonder how many of the other elements of the Zammit challenge are subject to this type of censorship?
Stumpy |
__________________
Fellow member of sooper sekrit KC appreciation society |
|
27th May 2003, 03:28 AM | #20 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 321
|
Stumpy,
As I mentioned in earlier posts, Colin Fry was NOT one of the mediums involved in the Scole Experiments. The issue of whether or not Fry was or is fradulent is wholly separate from the validity or non-validity of the phenomena of the Scole Experimental Group, whose members were Diana and Alan Bennett and Robin and Sandra Foy. Mike |
27th May 2003, 05:24 AM | #21 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
|
Here is a list (official from the actual report) of those present during some phase of the Scole sitting experiment:
Prof. Arthur Ellison Dr. Alan Gauld (acted as a sitter) Prof. Archie Roy Prof. Bernard Carr Prof. David Fontana Prof. Donald West (acted as a sitter) Dr. Hans Schaer Prof. Ivor Grattan-Guiness Ingrid Slack Karin Schnitiger Montague Keen Ralph Noyes Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (acted as a sitter) Walter Schnittger (Dr. Richard Wiseman provided a a security bag to hold the film during some of the sessions but was not an investigator. ) The mediums were: Alan Bennett Bernetta Head Diana Bennett Ken Britten Robin Foy Sandra Foy Pg 156. Colin Fry was NOT involved in any way with this experiment. I have a series of e-mails from Fry who says he will never cooperate with scientists in order to conduct experiments and that he has nothing to prove to them re his abilities either as a mental or as a physical medium. I arranged for my wife to attend a session he was to conduct but he never showed up and sent someone else instead. It was held in total and complete darkness and it was impossible to determine if any of the voices and "presences" were living people or spirit phenomena. I agree that in the absence of infra-red video surveillance of such seance rooms it is impossible to determine the validity of what is alleged to occur. There have been some few mediums who were willing to work in red light or low light in the past but none recently, especially since the development of simple, hand-held vid cameras coupled with the use of non-visible (light) ceramic infra red emitters. We use this technology in the sleep lab. The room remains completely dark but even an ordinary video camera records the subject's sleep looking almost as if it were in full daylight. Insfar as I am aware the Scole report cannot be ordered online from the SPR but only by post. You can send CC info or obtain latest price and postage first from: (SPR, 49 Marloes Rd, London W8 6LA, England) The report is: Proceedings of the Society for Psychial Research Vol 58, Part 220 - November 1999. pp. 452. Listed as authors: M. Keen A. Ellison D. Fontana (As I recall it was quite reasonable at around ten pounds plus postage). |
27th May 2003, 05:38 AM | #22 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,135
|
And none of those Profs. and Drs. brought a flashlight to turn on during the sessions. I simply do not understand what goes on in these people's brains. They exhibit so much respect for the Scole groups' wishes that they end up acting like idiots.
Sorry, just venting. ~~ Paul |
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
27th May 2003, 05:50 AM | #23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
Paul,
You are right. It really is amazing to see (probably) otherwise smart people throwing all precaution and experience overboard when it comes to paranormal testing. We saw it with Scole. We saw it with Schwartz. We've even seen it with Steve Grenard, who helped design an abomination of a paranormal test once. He ended up blaming the test-persons for his own faults. Amazing. Simply amazing. |
27th May 2003, 05:58 AM | #24 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
|
Actually Claus I was not involved in the design of that experiment and the controls I recruited were redundent controls or outside controls, some of whose ratings had to be invalidated. In any case the experiment has gone forward and is under pre-publication peer review. The preliminary information given by these controls was very important in helping to showcase some problems the designers of the experiment did not envision and subsequent trials took these into account. Our controls provided valuable feedback so in the end these controls did serve a very important purpose, and I have acknowledged and thanked them for their participation in spite of some leakage caused by one or two of them. Because they were "extra" this leakage did not impact negatively either on the preliminary trials and definitely not on the follow-up trials. For the prelims they had the very positive effect of providing feedback concerning the design of the project and how it was rated, covering such things as gender differences which was completely overlooked in the original design.
Sometimes we have to learn from our mistakes. |
27th May 2003, 07:06 AM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
Quote:
Quote:
Once again, you are caught lying. Later, you claimed you didn't do "experiments", but "tests". You want to see the whole saga again, Steve? It's right here... |
27th May 2003, 07:16 AM | #26 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
|
As the post clearly indicates and confirms, I did not and was not designing the experiment. I was recruiting controls to test the generalization hypothesis. Thank you for confirming this.
Yes, Schwartz, myself, and as indicated numerous others did this experiment. It does not say I designed the experiment. Again, myself as well as others must remind you that you do not read carefully enough before you make assertions, thus negating the validity of the assertions. |
27th May 2003, 07:46 AM | #27 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
Steve,
Quote:
Quote:
Hm?
Quote:
Quote:
|
27th May 2003, 08:10 AM | #28 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
|
As the additional post clearly indicates, I SUGGESTED this control phase to test for genealization. Once again, I did not design the experiment. Let me simplify this for you.
There is an active phase of the experiment (which I did NOT design). This was the tasks undertaken by the mediums and sitters. The sitters were to rate the information obtained by the mediums regarding their daily activities on particular days. I suggested the addition of control raters to test Randi's SB generalization hypothesis. This was NOT part of the design of the experiment. It was an add on. As it turned out the controls, which were recruited both from among members here and on the SS board, played an important role in providing feedback on flaws in the design of the experiment. Unofrtunately do to some premature leakge which I did not control we could not use the data to validate or invalidate the ratings but it did provide important feedback which was, is and will be acknowledged. Again, how you can equate "suggesting" something with the design of an experiment is something you need to work on...... you need to refrain from reading into statements things which are not there. If you want to say I designed the experiment, kindly show us where I said I did that....you cannot, because I did not design the experiment. In addition, beyond suggesting these conrols and helping to recruit them, I had nothing more to do with the rating information they received, its content or design. I just recruited some names and e-mail addresses. I do not want to take credit for anything I did not do. The evidence you claim to back up your assertions is puny, trivial and completely fallacious. Hence you can believe you are backing up something with evidence but you need to realize that on the face of it, this evidence which you cling to so tenaciously backs up nothing and, if anything, confirms what I have said above. Thank you again for sharing this. |
27th May 2003, 08:17 AM | #29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
Steve,
The control phase was not part of the experiment. Yeah, sure. You are one weird chap, Steve... |
27th May 2003, 08:27 AM | #30 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
|
Hmm.. anyone want to talk about the Scole Experiment? or are we hijacked yet again...
well, sorry must respond: As all the posts you were kind enough to archive indicates, the objective and design of the experiment was not to test for generalization. This was NOT part of the design of the experiment. So your answer in this case is: No. The experiment was designed and planned by others before I brought this up. As the experiment was about to go forward there were no controls for generalization. I reiterate -- why not take this opportunity also to test for generalization by getting some control raters in addition to the sitter raters? The principal investigator said okay to this suggestion and this is what was done. It was never part of the protocol and was an add on. There are 24 people now involved in helping to set up experiments to test mediumship (not to test specific mediums per se) and any suggestions, including from members here, are appreciated and may be communicated by private e-mail or in public here. This does not mean that all of these 24 scientists and researchers are designing the experiments. It does mean they are contributing to it. The ultimate design of any experiment, as you should know, rests with the principal investigator. |
27th May 2003, 08:39 AM | #31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are you saying that Schwartz designed an experiment without controls?? Because that is the worst I have ever heard. He is very much aware of all the criticism of his Arizona experiments, and now he (along with you, lest we forget) designs one completely without controls? You do realize what you are saying here, right? In order to save your butt, you are putting Schwartz in a very difficult position.
Quote:
Quote:
|
27th May 2003, 08:59 AM | #32 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
|
Larsen: This is the first time you bring up "others". Odd, isn't it?
No it isn't. Go back and read again. You really need to comprehend more better ... I immediately follow that statement by listing the participants in the experiment by category. Larsen: Steve, an experiment without controls is worthless! It is simply not an experiment. It's a travesty. SInce you do not know anything about the original protocol, you won't know there were other controls but not for the generalization hypothesis. In addition the independent assistant kept all information sealed until the entire series was completed. Larsen: Are you saying that Schwartz designed an experiment without controls?? Because that is the worst I have ever heard. He is very much aware of all the criticism of his Arizona experiments, and now he (along with you, lest we forget) designs one completely without controls? I responded above to this reiteration. Larsen: You do realize what you are saying here, right? In order to save your butt, you are putting Schwartz in a very difficult position. More hyperbole. Answered above. Larsen: Who are these people? Or aren't you the kind that tells...? Seven or eight pHD psychologists on different faculties, several physicians, in the UK (Keen) and some British researchers. We also have several research mediums (not any of Dr. Schwartz's group) who can contribute if they wish. They are low profile and do not do mediumship for a living or even publicly. Larsen: And this principal investigator is....? There is none. Anyone, two or three+ of them can take the collective information and design their own experiments. There is no organized project, just discussion of protocols so that anyone can benefit from multidisicplinary and multi- center opinion, advice or suggestions. This is why I invited anyone here with a serious interest to contribute if they wish. The group, however, is private so beyond the above I am not at liberty to divulge more information but anyone can e-mail if they are interested in contributing ideas to protocols for testing mediumship and telepathy. |
27th May 2003, 09:17 AM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now you tell us. I'll bet you can't show us.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
28th May 2003, 09:04 AM | #34 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
|
As I have pointed out many times, the story of Psychic research is the story of lousey experiments. I am coming more and more to the firm conclusion that the researchers involved are engaged in fraud, pure and simple. There is catagorically no reason that an experienced researcher would suddenly go blank when it comes to elementry experimental design EXCEPT if the "flaws" would be fixed on the next go round and the next and the next.
The lack of use of night vision devices is horseshat of the highest order. Since when are subjects informed of the controls that are put in place? This field is a joke. |
28th May 2003, 09:18 AM | #35 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
|
ED: The lack of use of night vision devices is horseshat of the highest order. Since when are subjects informed of the controls that are put in place?
With respect to phenomena that are produced in pitch blackness I do not disagree with you and said as much above regarding the use of IR lighted rooms with video surveillance. However, it would be impossible not to tell the subjects you are using such equipment, including night vision (which also emits a green glow) as it would become apparent as soon as it is employed. Therefore, it is far better in this instance to get the assent of this type of security measure in advance from the subject. If the subject declines then one can only conclude they are indeed full of manure. The primary objection to any kind of visible light has been related to it's harming of the medium producing the phenomena. I frankly don't see how or why this is true as there have been some mediums in this area who have worked in conditions involving visible light. But even if for a moment this were true, my suggestion about using video and non-visible light which works well quells that objection and I have passed it along to researchers in the UK who are trying to find mediums who produce physical phenomena. Not surprisingly so far there have been no takers. I have watched some videos of transfiguration mediums also and found their performance no better and no worse than any decent actor portraying the role of a person with MPD. |
28th May 2003, 09:25 AM | #36 |
Persnickety Insect
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
|
Quote:
|
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO |
|
28th May 2003, 09:40 AM | #37 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,102
|
Steve Grenard wrote:
With respect to phenomena that are produced in pitch blackness I do not disagree with you and said as much above regarding the use of IR lighted rooms with video surveillance. However, it would be impossible not to tell the subjects you are using such equipment, including night vision (which also emits a green glow) as it would become apparent as soon as it is employed Night vision does not emit a green glow. IR light is quite invisible to the human eye. IR night vision technology is now widely, and cheaply(relatively speaking) available. Sony has integrated extremely effective night vision technology into new models of their video cameras... I know, I own one. If you use the camera in a pitch black room, the room remains pitch black. The only indication of the IR source are two tiny, faintly glowing red led lights on the camera... they emit just enough light to be seen, but certainly not enough to even come close to illuminating a room. Such devices could EASILY be used without being detected... the camera itself is tiny, and will easily fit in the palm of a hand. And the led lights are barely noticible, very dim, and they can be hidden by employing shrouds, and filters over the IR light source. It probably wouldn't even be necessary to hide them, given that they could easily pass for such things as the indicator lights on smoke detectors and such. |
__________________
You're not the boss of me. |
|
28th May 2003, 09:50 AM | #38 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
|
The only night vision devices I have seen do emit a greenish tinge and on color video produce a greenish cast. The technology which you refer to uses extremely tiny pinpoints of i.r. light and I agree this technology can also be used.
The technology used in videotaping sleeping patients undergoing testing for sleep disorders involve the use of a totally non-light emitting ceramic near infra red array that bathes the entire room (140 sq feet) in invisible light. We use an ordinary b&w sony video camera mounted inside a smoked glass bubble on the ceiling in a corner of the room. Outside we have a b&w monitor (which gives the best picture for this) and remote controls for the camera so we can pan, tilt, focus and zoom without going anywhere near it. The rooms either have no windows, tight fitting doors or blackout curtains and sound/light attenuating venetian blinds as well as being sound proofed overall. We also record sound from a room mic and a mic taped to the subject's neck (to do a sonograph of snoring). This extra measure in a paranormal investigation would preclude ventroliquy from occuring as well. The most famous medium producing physical materializations which defy explanation worked long before this technology became available (in the 40s and early 50s). Her name was Helen Duncan for anyone who wants to research her on the web. She worked in conditions of visible light and in unfamiliar rooms as well. |
28th May 2003, 10:10 AM | #39 |
Nap, interrupted.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,135
|
Psiload, will that camera of yours pick up a human? Someone told me the other day that commercial cameras aren't sensitive enough to IR to record a human, so you need real night vision goggles.
~~ Paul |
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim |
|
28th May 2003, 10:30 AM | #40 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,102
|
Quote:
Things that make you go... hmmmmmmmm? The fact that such technology was available, yet was not allowed to be employed during the Scole experiments, is all any honest investigator should need to dismiss the claims of The Scole Group right out of hand. I just don't understand why any honest, competent investigator would waste his/her time and reputation on an experiment that was controlled by the test subject... I just don't get it. The Scole Group's argument against the use of night vision cameras was ludicrously transparent. It doesn't take a trained, experienced investigator to realize that... any fool can see what's going on. Months of investigation, reams of reports, meetings, debates, claims, accusations, denials... all could have been avoided with a few clicks on Amazon.com to purchase a Sony camera with Nightshot(tm). I'm sorry, but I just can't give the Scole investigators the benefit of my doubt, it would only be charity. They were/are incompetent boobs. |
__________________
You're not the boss of me. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|