Psience Quest

(2017-09-02, 08:26 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]Do you have any comment on which of those techniques the medium used in this photo?
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-23...ml#pid3047

I have no idea.

(2017-09-02, 08:43 PM)Leuders Wrote: [ -> ]I suggest users here click on the above link for information about the photographs. They are taken from Türck's book [i]Jeg var dus med Aanderne... which translates (I was Familiar with the Spirits).[/i]
...
In conclusion: These photographs are evidence of fraud, not levitation.

That link has already been shared.

And the photos are evidence of people and things moving around a room. I'm inclined to be skeptical, but as far as I'm concerned, an uncontrolled experiment like this, with only photos to show for it, should be shelved when debating this topic.

I'm strongly inclined to believe they are fraud:

1) I believe the pictures are 'photoshopped' due to the abnomalies I have highlighted. Sven Turck was a photographer by living.

2) The pictures are taken in his own home 

3) At least one well-known medium-fraud Anna Melloni attended his seances even though she isn't  present on these particular pictures

(2017-09-03, 01:56 AM)Leuders Wrote: [ -> ]Here are some different photographs from physical mediumship.

Left is Stanisława Tomczyk a polish medium and right is magician William Marriott who replicated her feats by natural methods (invisible thread).

OK, so clearly it is possible to fake this stuff. That surprises no one. Magicians have been doing this sort of thing for hundreds of years...

However- the fact that a magician can fake putting a ball under a cup, doesn't mean that a person can't do it for real, does it?

Your are stating the obvious (that things can be faked) and claiming it as some sort of revelation. News flash- it isn't.

You are making this sound cut and dried and simple. Of course, it isn't.

I think most informed people, such as those on this forum, already understand this, and I assume you do as well. But just for the record:

Proving something isn't faked requires the subject to be willing and able to submit to special restrictions and scrutiny in order to satisfy your skepticism. Unfortunately most subjects are completely disinterested in your skepticism and don't care one iota whether you or I believe in what they are doing. And those that might care, may not be able to perform the acts given the restrictions you want to impose. 

In many cases the reason these folks are disinterested is because they have been subjected to repeated insults and other indignities and are simply sick and tired of the abuse. They rightfully understand that it is almost always a waste of their time trying to convince those who really don't want to believe in what they are doing, and who will never fail to find additional reasons for same. And yes- in some other cases, the subjects don't want to cooperate because they don't want to be found out.

In a more subtle way: many of these extraordinary skills seem require a sort of group support to manifest. Negativity and doubt truly DO affect to outcome of the activity. In the same way that it has been shown that the intentions of a person running a "scientific test" such as a for a pharmaceutical product, can sway the outcome. This unfortunately seems to be the nature of many psi phenomena.

These truths are inconvenient for anyone on either side of the question, because it makes testing and validation or refutation difficult and laborious, and maybe even impossible. 

Rather than admit these things, and proceed in a constructive manner, it seems like you would rather ignore them, and continue to flit around throwing up 100 year old pictures and make: insubstantial, irrelevant, easily controvertible, and just plain erroneous statements as if they are substantial arguments.

To your point- 
Are there some (even many) who don't have the ability to perform these feats and are faking it? Of course there are. But that's the easy part. Telling the difference is, of course, the hard part. 

Are there ANY who can do these things? That of course is the big question. 

I'm thinking that if you can't come up with something better than 100 year old pictures of long dead magicians with invisible strings you are screwed. 

Isn't it possible for you to step it up and talk about modern day events and evidence and methods? 

Unfortunately, even if it is, I'm afraid it will be difficult to make an irrefutable case on either side of the argument. Which of course is why, after going on 200 years of arguing about this stuff, we are still where we began. 

I can't help but think however, that we have more science and more tools than ever to look more closely at these things, but we just can't seem to marshal the impetus to do so. Most in the science community (who are the people with the intellect, methods, and infrastructure to do so) just don't yet seem willing, mostly because it challenges the bedrock on which they stand. And until this bedrock softens, we will be having these arguments based on insufficient (for some) proof for some time to come.

(2017-09-03, 07:15 AM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]I'm strongly inclined to believe they are fraud:

1) I believe the pictures are 'photoshopped' due to the abnomalies I have highlighted. Sven Turck was a photographer by living.

Even though the second of those so-called anomalies was utterly ludicrous? And the first had a quite ordinary explanation.    Perhaps you don't realise how foolish this makes you sound?

Yes, he was a photographer who produced work of an extraordinarily high quality. Well worth a look simply on the basis of the photography itself.
http://www.kb.dk/images/billed/2010/okt/...ect668/en/

Quote:2) The pictures are taken in his own home 

That would be convenient for arranging the camera and lighting. Most likely he often used parts of his home for photography, or maybe it was adjacent to his studio. Certainly there are many family scenes and festive occasions among his work, again of very high quality.

Quote:3) At least one well-known medium-fraud Anna Melloni attended his seances even though she isn't  present on these particular pictures

From the huge quantity of high quality images available online, his work covered many and  varied areas,  presenting a time-capsule of everyday life in its many forms during that era. People at work, people at play, street scenes, landscapes, architecture interior and exterior. Whatever he captured seems to fall within that remit - a slice of everyday life.

(2017-09-03, 10:06 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]If Galileo took his telescope apart he could explain the mechanics to the priest and the priest would then have no excuse.  If a medium took his/her work apart it would simply expose the fraud!

Wow. I wonder if it is possible that you could have proved my point more succinctly....

One of the reasons the priest refused to look is that it was so obvious to him that the device was fraudulent. He was starting from that perspective, and he considered objectively looking at the apparatus to be a total waste of his time because it was impossible for him to conceive of it actually working.

You seem to be starting from the same position of false-certitude, while ignoring the evidence in support of the thing you are denying. 

And what a preposterous and frivolous assertion: that one be required to "take apart" their ability to do the thing they demonstrably do, as if all things are subject to this possibility. Utter nonsense. That's as ludicrous as asking a comedian to dissect the reason something is funny, or for a surgeon to locate the exact place in the brain a memory resides. These are not serious claims and I give them no credibility and I would encourage others to do the same.

(2017-09-03, 10:43 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]I never made any such assertion.  Leave your emotional knee jerks behind when you enter a debate - they don't do you any favours or support your case.

Really? 

Leaving knee jerk behind in a debate is optional, having the ability to read and understand our common language isn't.

Snip- If Galileo took his telescope apart he could explain the mechanics to the priest and the priest would then have no excuse.  If a medium took his/her work apart it would simply expose the fraud!

(2017-09-03, 10:57 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]I did not assert that one be required to, as you asserted I had!  Your emotions got in the way of your reading and made you assume something that I hadn't said.

Oh,, I NOW realize now the real meaning of your post. It's all about what the meaning of is, is... yikes. 

Snip- If Galileo took his telescope apart he could explain the mechanics to the priest and the priest would then have no excuse.  If a medium took his/her work apart it would simply expose the fraud!

Any reasonable person with a 5th grade reading level knows exactly what was said. I will leave it for others to make their own decision and comment or not. 

Personally if I were them I would not because, as I said before, this is not to be taken seriously...

(2017-09-03, 10:06 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]If Galileo took his telescope apart he could explain the mechanics to the priest and the priest would then have no excuse.  If a medium took his/her work apart it would simply expose the fraud!

Oh,, I neglected to mention the other reason I disagree with this....

Do you really think that if he DID take the telescope apart and explain reflection, and refraction, and incidence angles, the priest would say: "holy cow, now I see, yes you are right this does work"? Really. Honestly. Would you assert that? And of course, I'm not saying that any and every priest would follow this course, let's not be so extreme to make such unsupportable and sweeping claims. I am talking about the average, run of the mill, god fearing, "flock" managing priest.

Did that happen when Copernicus explained HIS assertions? No. Of course not.

Most ardent disbelievers will find a reason NOT to believe,,, no matter how illogical or unsupported by facts. There is always a straw, however small and flimsy, that one can grasp on to if one wants to.

Quote:Rather than admit these things, and proceed in a constructive manner, it seems like you would rather ignore them, and continue to flit around throwing up 100 year old pictures and make: insubstantial, irrelevant, easily controvertible, and just plain erroneous statements as if they are substantial arguments.

To your point- 
Are there some (even many) who don't have the ability to perform these feats and are faking it? Of course there are. But that's the easy part. Telling the difference is, of course, the hard part. 

Are there ANY who can do these things? That of course is the big question. 

I'm thinking that if you can't come up with something better than 100 year old pictures of long dead magicians with invisible strings you are screwed. 

Isn't it possible for you to step it up and talk about modern day events and evidence and methods? 

Unfortunately, even if it is, I'm afraid it will be difficult to make an irrefutable case on either side of the argument. Which of course is why, after going on 200 years of arguing about this stuff, we are still where we began.

Jkmac the reason I am citing old pictures is because physical mediumship is really a historical matter. A thing of the past. Most physical mediums had stopped operating by the late 1940s. The majority of physical mediums were operating around 1880-1940.

I also cite old pictures because they are in the public domain and out of copyright. I am not aware of many modern physical mediumship pictures but even I found some they under copyright so cannot be used. There are only a handful of modern physical mediums, and these are quite boring compared to the older ones. Why would I be talking about modern days events and evidence in this thread? This is a historical thread that deals with physical mediumship.

There were two proponents of physical mediumship on this thread near the beginning. Jim Smith has refused to acknowledge or correct errors on his website and has not posted here again and pssst says he is not talking to those who are biased against the subject. As there are no proponents commenting I am just putting in things that might be of interest to people.

What I do find interesting is that Stanisława Tomczyk a blatant fraud is still defended in modern parapsychological publications as a genuine medium (see the Handbook of Parapsychology).

(2017-09-03, 02:35 PM)Leuders Wrote: [ -> ]Jkmac the reason I am citing old pictures is because physical mediumship is really a historical matter. A thing of the past. Most physical mediums had stopped operating by the late 1940s. The majority of physical mediums were operating around 1880-1940.

I also cite old pictures because they are in the public domain and out of copyright. I am not aware of many modern physical mediumship pictures but even I found some they under copyright so cannot be used. There are only a handful of modern physical mediums, and these are quite boring compared to the older ones. Why would I be talking about modern days events and evidence in this thread? This is a historical thread that deals with physical mediumship.

There were two proponents of physical mediumship on this thread near the beginning. Jim Smith has refused to acknowledge or correct errors on his website and has not posted here again and pssst says he is not talking to those who are biased against the subject. As there are no proponents commenting I am just putting in things that might be of interest to people.

What I do find interesting is that Stanisława Tomczyk a blatant fraud is still defended in modern parapsychological publications as a genuine medium (see the Handbook of Parapsychology).

Hmm. Thing of the past? I'd say not so much.

There may just be a lot more of these folks practicing today than you think. And there are photos and lots of video to see. 

I'm seeing a PM later this week as a matter of fact. 

Also- I didn't realize this was particularly a "historical" thread. Did I miss that part?

In terms of not responding, I think it was you that I asked something like: what would you expect a person being forced through the air to look like, and why was the picture not in alignment with those expectations? Or maybe that was a different person I asked? In any case,, the person making those comments seemed quite sure the man was not being acted on by a force other than his own,,, but I can't for the life of me understand how one could draw that conclusion from the photos I saw. And no answer.