This is a BBC radio documentary, with some extensive use of dramatic reconstructions, regarding a poltergeist haunting in Battersea, London. At first I thought it might have been entirely fictional since I’d never heard of this case (not that I ever spent much time investigating poltergeist cases) but then I recognised the name Keiran O’Keefe as the resident skeptic, so it seems legit.
So far it’s up to episode three, and I’m enjoying it. I’m interested to see where it’s going since the first episode teased that this was a case that had never been explained “… until now.”
Just thought I’d give a heads up to anyone who enjoys this kind of thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p095j87b[url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p095j87b][/url]
The BBC loves to play "Set 'em up to knock 'em down" with this kind of subject. Same with anything they consider outside the mainstream such as alternative history or alternative archaeology. The format is usually to present the unorthodox or "fringe" story first as though it has some merit and then gradually, later in the series (or the single documentary), proceed to debunk it by wheeling in a selection of skeptics and orthodox academics who tend to patronise the viewer and belittle the investigators who foolishly attributed some paranormal or mysterious cause to the case.
It seems to be a mission of the BBC (Channel 4 is even worse) to promote orthodoxy and attempt to demolish any stories that challenge that orthodoxy. Of course, the skeptics would love that but would probably rather the BBC didn't give these subjects the air time in the first place.
It finished last week and I enjoyed it. The explanation mentioned in episode one was a bit of a tease: they actually gave two explanations, the skeptic’s and the proponent’s. Leaving it open ended was the only reasonable conclusion after so much evidence. The case is very interesting. It was a mix of unexplainable physical events (multiple, credible witnesses) and very suspect attempts at communication (the spirit gave historical facts that had been in a TV play a week or so earlier).
Funny how it’s seems to have been overshadowed by the Enfield Poltergeist, because I’d never heard of it. I’m glad I listened to it, and I might investigate poltergeist activity a little more in future. Google has already suggested a poltergeist-PK paper by Dick Beirman which I might read. Once I would have called that synchronicity but now I just assume it was cookies on my PC.
(2021-03-06, 08:42 AM)ersby Wrote: [ -> ]It finished last week and I enjoyed it. The explanation mentioned in episode one was a bit of a tease: they actually gave two explanations, the skeptic’s and the proponent’s. Leaving it open ended was the only reasonable conclusion after so much evidence. The case is very interesting. It was a mix of unexplainable physical events (multiple, credible witnesses) and very suspect attempts at communication (the spirit gave historical facts that had been in a TV play a week or so earlier).
Funny how it’s seems to have been overshadowed by the Enfield Poltergeist, because I’d never heard of it. I’m glad I listened to it, and I might investigate poltergeist activity a little more in future. Google has already suggested a poltergeist-PK paper by Dick Beirman which I might read. Once I would have called that synchronicity but now I just assume it was cookies on my PC.
You might find this of interest if you haven’t already seen it...
http://www.british-paranormal.co.uk/the-...-services/