Psience Quest

Sorry for the delay. I have been busy at work the last few weeks. Here is my response to the remaining problem.

Let us assume that the Copenhagen fire happened earlier, perhaps one night before the séance took place like the critic is claiming. The information would still not have been able to reach Iceland in that amount of time. As Haraldsson wrote, the Marconi station only carried major world news that it got from the Poldhu station in Cornwall. The Copenhagen fire was not major world news, since there was no person that died and only some damage to one building. So the information could not get to Iceland through telegraphy even if it took place one night earlier.

Even if they would have been able to access the information about the fire, it still does not explain the veridical information about Emil Jensen. This cannot be explained as fraud, since no one tried to verify the information until Haraldsson did it over 100 years later. What would have been the point of looking up the information and using the information to create a fraudulent case if no one involved made any attempt at verifying the information? It is not possible that the information can be due to cryptomnesia either. As I showed in post 49 in this thread, the obituaries that was published did not contain all the veridical information, nor information about where in Copenhagen he lived, so it is not possible that Indridi could have read all of the information in these obituaries and subconsciously used it, nor is it possible that someone else could have told Indridi all of the information after having read the obituaries.

Also, even if there would have been some way for them to obtain the information about the fire that would still not explain why Indiri did claim that it was the Jensen communicator out of all possible communicators that told everyone about the fire if Indiri was not aware of the fact that Jensen lived two doors away from the fire. That it would be a coincidence that Indiri just happened to claim that it was this particular person that lived so close to the factory that communicated the information is very unlikely. If Indiri would have been consciously or subconsciously aware of the fact that Jensen lived two doors away from the fire, then why did Indiri not tell anyone about this veridical information during the sitting, since that would make the case evidentially stronger?

If the fire took place one night earlier one may wonder why Indridi/Jensen claimed to experience it while it was taking place. This could be due to telepathic deferment. To quote Braude: "Furthermore, cases of crisis apparitions and modern experiments in dream telepathy suggest that there may be a period of latency between the sending of a telepathic message and the subsequent telepathic experience of the percipient (typically dubbed telepathic deferment). In fact the evidence suggests that the emergence into consciousness of (or the behavioral response to) a telepathic stimulus frequently occurs when that event is convenient or otherwise appropriate relative to the ongoing background of events or the subject’s state of mind. For example, the subject’s response might be delayed until a time of repose or relaxation or at least to a time when surrounding events are not particularly distracting." https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...pparitions If it really was Jensen that experienced the fire in Copenhagen, then perhaps he experienced through ESP what was happening one night earlier due to telepathic deferment, and if it was Indridi that subconsciously experienced the fire in Copenhagen through ESP, then perhaps he experienced what was happening one night earlier due to telepathic deferment.

What a fascinating discussion. Thank you all.

(2023-08-04, 11:10 AM)Wanderer Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry for the delay. I have been busy at work the last few weeks. Here is my response to the remaining problem.

Let us assume that the Copenhagen fire happened earlier, perhaps one night before the séance took place like the critic is claiming. The information would still not have been able to reach Iceland in that amount of time. As Haraldsson wrote, the Marconi station only carried major world news that it got from the Poldhu station in Cornwall. The Copenhagen fire was not major world news, since there was no person that died and only some damage to one building. So the information could not get to Iceland through telegraphy even if it took place one night earlier.

Even if they would have been able to access the information about the fire, it still does not explain the veridical information about Emil Jensen. This cannot be explained as fraud, since no one tried to verify the information until Haraldsson did it over 100 years later. What would have been the point of looking up the information and using the information to create a fraudulent case if no one involved made any attempt at verifying the information? It is not possible that the information can be due to cryptomnesia either. As I showed in post 49 in this thread, the obituaries that was published did not contain all the veridical information, nor information about where in Copenhagen he lived, so it is not possible that Indridi could have read all of the information in these obituaries and subconsciously used it, nor is it possible that someone else could have told Indridi all of the information after having read the obituaries.

Also, even if there would have been some way for them to obtain the information about the fire that would still not explain why Indiri did claim that it was the Jensen communicator out of all possible communicators that told everyone about the fire if Indiri was not aware of the fact that Jensen lived two doors away from the fire. That it would be a coincidence that Indiri just happened to claim that it was this particular person that lived so close to the factory that communicated the information is very unlikely. If Indiri would have been consciously or subconsciously aware of the fact that Jensen lived two doors away from the fire, then why did Indiri not tell anyone about this veridical information during the sitting, since that would make the case evidentially stronger?

If the fire took place one night earlier one may wonder why Indridi/Jensen claimed to experience it while it was taking place. This could be due to telepathic deferment. To quote Braude: "Furthermore, cases of crisis apparitions and modern experiments in dream telepathy suggest that there may be a period of latency between the sending of a telepathic message and the subsequent telepathic experience of the percipient (typically dubbed telepathic deferment). In fact the evidence suggests that the emergence into consciousness of (or the behavioral response to) a telepathic stimulus frequently occurs when that event is convenient or otherwise appropriate relative to the ongoing background of events or the subject’s state of mind. For example, the subject’s response might be delayed until a time of repose or relaxation or at least to a time when surrounding events are not particularly distracting." https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...pparitions If it really was Jensen that experienced the fire in Copenhagen, then perhaps he experienced through ESP what was happening one night earlier due to telepathic deferment, and if it was Indridi that subconsciously experienced the fire in Copenhagen through ESP, then perhaps he experienced what was happening one night earlier due to telepathic deferment.

Thanks for another interesting post. The points you make are good. But I've been thinking about this, and believe there is a more direct reply to the remaining problem, which is that its assumptions about newspaper deadlines might be completely wrong. The skeptic who proposed that criticism was basing it on his own experience working at newspapers, probably in the mid-late 20th or early 21st century in a country that isn't Denmark. That things may have been different in early 20th century Denmark seems like an obvious possibility.

You'd think there'd be at least one suggestion in the evidence we've got that the fire took place a day earlier than the evening of the 24th/early morning of the 25th, but as far as I can tell there isn't. The Politiken and Berlingske newspaper reports of Nov 25th both write of a fire "Last night around 12 o'clock." The fire brigade report coincides perfectly with this, stating that they were called about the fire at 11:52PM (Nov 24), extinguished it by 2:00AM (Nov 25), but had to return as the fire had flared up again and it was extinguished for good by 6:00AM. According to Haraldsson it's likely the fire started a little earlier than when they were called, probably about 9:00PM (Nov 24), because it seems certain it was unnoticed for a while until it grew enough that it was a conspicuous problem. There is simply nothing here at all to enable a skeptic to honestly claim the fire could have been a day earlier. The only possible exception I found was this from the skeptic's post:

>The Danish newspapers reported about the fire on November 25. That would be only possible if the fire happened on the night of 23/24.11.1905., one night before the séance took place, because of the newspaper printing deadlines. For example, on November 25 the Horsens Social Demokrat newspaper writes about the fire with all the important details in the telegram column dated on 24.11.1905

I'm pretty much certain that the last date the skeptic gives is a typo because otherwise what he says makes no sense and is contradictory. [EDIT: I was wrong about this, see post #69 below.] He says the piece about the fire in the Danish Horsens Social Demokrat is from Nov 25, and before that he says the Danish newspapers "reported about the fire on November 25." But at the end he inconsistently writes that it was dated Nov 24. I think he meant to write Nov 25 in the last instance too, which in any case is redundant, unless he meant to say that it was documented that the telegram with information about the Copenhagen fire was written or arrived on Nov 24. But then what would be the point of his whole convoluted argument about newspaper deadlines? It would be completely unnecessary if he actually had a telegram report dated Nov 24 about the fire, as then he'd have direct evidence confirming the fire was probably a lot earlier and he wouldn't need to support his hypothesis indirectly by appealing to how newspapers work.

I haven't seen this Horsens Social Demokrat piece though and Haraldsson doesn't seem to cite it anywhere. Does anyone know how to find a digital copy? It would be good to know exactly what it says and what the dates are.

I've found links to the Nov 24 and 25 Horsens Social Demokrat issues. But I don't know how to translate whole newspaper articles. Can anyone figure out if either of these has a story about the Copenhagen fire?

https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediest...7ab7af6%22

https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediest...7ab7af6%22

(2023-08-05, 09:54 PM)RViewer88 Wrote: [ -> ]I've found links to the Nov 24 and 25 Horsens Social Demokrat issues. But I don't know how to translate whole newspaper articles. Can anyone figure out if either of these has a story about the Copenhagen fire?

https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediest...7ab7af6%22

https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediest...7ab7af6%22

Thanks for your work in tracking these down. I have no knowledge of the Danish language so can't help directly. So far I downloaded the PDF version of these two issues of the paper. From there I did some random and short copy+paste of bits of text and put it into google translate but so far, though it worked and was useful, I did not find anything relevant.

There is another related approach. Grab a screen image of a section of a page and save it as an image (such as a png or high-quality jpg file). Not tried this yet, but google allows the uploading of an image and will offer to translate any text it finds in the image. May be quicker that way. edit: Just had a quick try. Not very effective for me. My opinion so far, copying the text from the pdf version is better, more accurate.

(2023-08-05, 09:54 PM)RViewer88 Wrote: [ -> ]I've found links to the Nov 24 and 25 Horsens Social Demokrat issues. But I don't know how to translate whole newspaper articles. Can anyone figure out if either of these has a story about the Copenhagen fire?

https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediest...7ab7af6%22

https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediest...7ab7af6%22

I’m a native dane (and a highly skeptical one). The fire is mentioned in the Nov 25 issue, page 2, column 5 below the “Sidste nyt” heading.

(2023-08-06, 03:45 PM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]I’m a native dane (and a highly skeptical one). The fire is mentioned in the Nov 25 issue, page 2, column 5 below the “Sidste nyt” heading.

Thanks a lot for figuring that out.

Here is the original text I copy-pasted from the column heading:

>Sidste Nyt,
(Telegrammer gennem Ritzaus Bureau.)

Here is Google Translate's translation:

>Latest news,
(Telegrams through the Ritzaus Bureau.)

Here is the original text I copy-pasted from the story:

>Brand Paa Københavns Lampeog
Lysekrouefabrik
København, 24. Novenber. Kl. 1
Nat opstod ifl. þÿ  S o c . - DI led mi . "
København« Lampe- og Lysekronefabrik
i St. Kongensgade 63. Fabriken blev
delvis ødelagt. Ejeren, Hr. Wilson
lider et meget betydeligt Tab. Fabriken
er nu standset og han har store
Bestillinger. Ilden flyldeL en Kortflutning.

Here is Google Translate's translation:

>Fire at Copenhagen's Lampeog
Light fixture factory
Copenhagen, 24 November. At 1
Night arose in accordance with þÿ S o c . - DI led me. "
Copenhagen' Lamp and Chandelier Factory
in St. Kongensgade 63. The factory remained
partially destroyed. The owner, Mr. Wilson
suffers a very considerable loss. The factory
is now stopped and he has large
Orders. The fire caused a map transfer.

The translation is pretty rough. sbu, would you be able to give us an English translation?

It's clear I was incorrect and there was no typo in the skeptic's post. As anyone can see it says "24 November" in the Horsens Social Demokrat piece.

Crucially, however, there doesn't seem to be any sign that the telegram about the fire was received on the 24th, but it would be good to have a proper translation to be sure of that. Haraldsson in his "Perfect Case" paper captions the Politiken article this way: "Politiken’s report on the fire in Copenhagen on November 24th 1905." Therefore the Horsens piece may just be indicating that the fire began on the 24th as the Politiken article does too.

The whole Sidste Nyt column seems to entirely refute the skeptic's argument anyway. Why? Obviously this issue was published Nov 25. And yet there are entries in the Sidste Nyt column dated Nov 24 and others dated Nov 25. Therefore stories concerning events that occurred on Nov 25 were able to be printed in a newspaper issue published Nov 25. So the newspaper deadlines argument definitely is a failure.

Btw I've been searching through historical Icelandic papers here for any evidence that a story was carried in 1905 about the Copenhagen fire: https://timarit.is/?lang=en. I've done this by searching for the address where the fire happened, "Kongensgade 63," and Icelandic words for fire, factory, factory fire, and also the factory's owner, Wilson. I haven't found anything so I'm tentatively concluding that no Icelandic paper carried the story. A skeptic could argue that Jonsson prevented the publication of a Marconi transmission about the fire in his Isafold paper, since we know it's not in the Nov 25 Marconi column, to help perpetrate the fraud. But as Haraldsson pointed out other newspapers had access to the Marconi transmissions, so you'd think if the Copenhagen fire story came over, some newspaper in Iceland would've printed the story. But like I said so far I can't find any evidence of that.

(2023-08-06, 05:41 PM)RViewer88 Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks a lot for figuring that out.

Here is the original text I copy-pasted from the column heading:

>Sidste Nyt,
(Telegrammer gennem Ritzaus Bureau.)

Here is Google Translate's translation:

>Latest news,
(Telegrams through the Ritzaus Bureau.)

Here is the original text I copy-pasted from the story:

>Brand Paa Københavns Lampeog
Lysekrouefabrik
København, 24. Novenber. Kl. 1
Nat opstod ifl. þÿ  S o c . - DI led mi . "
København« Lampe- og Lysekronefabrik
i St. Kongensgade 63. Fabriken blev
delvis ødelagt. Ejeren, Hr. Wilson
lider et meget betydeligt Tab. Fabriken
er nu standset og han har store
Bestillinger. Ilden flyldeL en Kortflutning.

Here is Google Translate's translation:

>Fire at Copenhagen's Lampeog
Light fixture factory
Copenhagen, 24 November. At 1
Night arose in accordance with þÿ S o c . - DI led me. "
Copenhagen' Lamp and Chandelier Factory
in St. Kongensgade 63. The factory remained
partially destroyed. The owner, Mr. Wilson
suffers a very considerable loss. The factory
is now stopped and he has large
Orders. The fire caused a map transfer.

The translation is pretty rough. sbu, would you be able to give us an English translation?

It's clear I was incorrect and there was no typo in the skeptic's post. As anyone can see it says "24 November" in the Horsens Social Demokrat piece.

Crucially, however, there doesn't seem to be any sign that the telegram about the fire was received on the 24th, but it would be good to have a proper translation to be sure of that. Haraldsson in his "Perfect Case" paper captions the Politiken article this way: "Politiken’s report on the fire in Copenhagen on November 24th 1905." Therefore the Horsens piece may just be indicating that the fire began on the 24th as the Politiken article does too.

The whole Sidste Nyt column seems to entirely refute the skeptic's argument anyway. Why? Obviously this issue was published Nov 25. And yet there are entries in the Sidste Nyt column dated Nov 24 and others dated Nov 25. Therefore stories concerning events that occurred on Nov 25 were able to be printed in a newspaper issue published Nov 25. So the newspaper deadlines argument definitely is a failure.

“Sidste nyt” simply means “latest news”. Below “Sidste nyt” follows this line “Telegrams from Ritzaus Bureau”. Ritzaus Bureau still exists today and they may have historical data so you may try to contact them https://ritzau.com/

The article itself in english:

“Fire at Copenhagens Lamp and Chandelier factory.
Copenhagen Nov 24. At 1 am according to “Soc.-Dem.” a fire occured at Copenhagens Lamp and Chandelier factory located at St. Kongensgade 63. The factory was partially destroyed. The owner, Mr. Wilson
suffers a very considerable loss. The factory is now stopped (meaning the production) while he has a large amount (or size of) of orders. The fire was due to a short circuit”

(2023-08-06, 07:00 PM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]“Sidste nyt” simply means “latest news”. Below “Sidste nyt” follows this line “Telegrams from Ritzaus Bureau”. Ritzaus Bureau still exists today and they may have historical data so you may try to contact them https://ritzau.com/

The article itself in english:

“Fire at Copenhagens Lamp and Chandelier factory.
Copenhagen Nov 24. At 1 am according to “Soc.-Dem.” a fire occured at Copenhagens Lamp and Chandelier factory located at St. Kongensgade 63. The factory was partially destroyed. The owner, Mr. Wilson
suffers a very considerable loss. The factory is now stopped (meaning the production) while he has a large amount (or size of) of orders. The fire was due to a short circuit”

Thanks! The mention of "Soc.-Dem." led me to wonder if there was reporting on the fire in the newspaper Social-Demokraten, which would then be the original source of the Horsens article. I found two stories on it in Social-Demokraten, one from Nov 25 and one from Nov 26; the stories are easily found by word-searching "Kongensgade" in the PDFs:

https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediest...de%2063%22

https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediest...de%2063%22

Based on the jumbled up Google Translate it looks like the 25th story also says "1am," but it doesn't say anything about the 24th. This is important because the Horsens article could be interpreted as meaning 1am on the 24th, which would support the skeptic's interpretation of the fire having occurred from late Nov 23 to early Nov 24. But the Nov 26 story in Social-Demokraten seems to eliminate the ambiguity by referring to the fire as having been "yesterday," meaning the 25th, which would mean that the "1am" was Nov 25 1am, consistent with Haraldsson's timeline. Horsens may have simply omitted an explicit mention that the fire started late on the 24th, which then would be the real reason that the column about the fire is dated the 24th, despite its focusing on the fire at 1am on Nov 25; alternatively they may have meant to date it the 25th and simply screwed up.

At this point I feel confident in rejecting the idea that the fire happened on the 23rd/24th. It's pretty well certain that it happened the 24th/25th as Haraldsson said. These old Danish newspapers such as Horsens having telegram stories dated both Nov 24 and Nov 25 in issues published Nov 25 utterly refute the skeptic's assumptions about how newspaper deadlines would've made it impossible for the Copenhagen fire story to appear in newspapers so soon after it happened.

The only skeptical argument remaining that gives me pause is one from Max, where he argues that the correspondence between the Berlingske newspaper report, specifically a brief telegram version of it that can be imagined, and Jensen's communication is too close to believe anything other than that it came from a Marconi transmission. But consider the account of Jensen's communication by Nielsson in 1922:

>The first evening he [Mr Jensen] manifested himself through the medium, he told us that in the half-hour pause while the medium was being allowed to rest in the middle of the sitting, he had set off for Copenhagen and had seen that a factory was on fire in one of the streets of the city. He told us that the firemen had succeeded in conquering the fire. At that time no telegraphic connection between Iceland and the outside world had been established, so there were no means of recognizing that event. This happened on 24th November 1905. Next day I went to see the Bishop of Iceland, the Right Reverend Hallgrimur Sveinsson, who was my uncle, and stated to him what Jensen had told us, and asked him to write it down and be a witness, whether it proved true or not. At Christmas the next boat came from Denmark, and my uncle looked with curiosity through the Danish paper, Politiken, and to his great content, observed the description of the fire. Both day and time were right. About the factory Jensen was also right. It was a lamp factory in 63 Store Kongensgade.

And then the account of Jensen's communication by Kvanran in 1910:

>This your fellow countryman whom we have come to like so much, presented himself for the first time as he appeared through the medium in a very distinct and elegant manner. He [Jensen] told us that he had come directly from Copenhagen, and that there was a fire there: a factory was burning. The time was about 9 o’clock when he came. Then he disappeared and came back an hour later. Then they [the firemen] had conquered the fire, he said. We did not have any telegraph at that time, so we had to wait to have this statement verified. But we wrote down his account and kept the document with the Bishop [who had taken part in earlier séances]. With the next ship [from Copenhagen], the papers brought us the news that there had been a large fire in Copenhagen that evening—in Store Kongensgade, I think it was—where amongst other things a factory had burnt. It also said that at about 12 o’clock the fire had been brought under control. As you know, the time is about 12 o’clock here in Copenhagen when it is 10 o’clock in Reykjavik.

Here is the Berlingske piece that Max claims an abbreviated telegram version of closely correspond to the above accounts:

>Last night at around twelve o’clock the Fire Brigade was called to Store
hour. The damage was substantial.

Neither account of Jensen’s communication states that Jensen mentioned the specific address or even the street name; they only bring up such information when talking about the newspaper confirmation. The first account doesn’t state that the fire was controlled in an hour while the second does. The Berlingske piece says “about an hour” specifically, which neither account does. I don’t see such a close correspondence with either statement and the content of the Berlingske piece to raise suspicion. If they were trying to get a spectacular hit by having the fake ghost of Jensen feed the séance attendees the Berlingske info received by Marconi transmission, I imagine they would have mentioned more specific details such as the street or the precise address, or even something as minor as what kind of factory was on fire, but neither account says Jensen mentioned any of that. But what about a possibly abbreviated version of the Berlingske article as per Max's argument? Well even the very short Horsens telegram gives the address at which the fire happened and mentions it was a lamp and chandelier factory and gives the factory owner's name. So it definitely looks like a good bet that any Marconi transmission about the fire would've had some specific info, but none of that specific info was said to have been communicated from Jensen. A Marconi transmission seems like a highly unlikely source of the communication consequently.