Psience Quest

(2023-08-06, 08:58 PM)RViewer88 Wrote: [ -> ]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; 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 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 these accounts closely correspond to:

>Last night at around twelve o’clock the Fire Brigade was called to Store

Kongensgade 63, where fire had broken out in a house in the backyard in the

warehouse of the Copenhagen Lamp Factory. The fire had spread considerably

when the fire brigades arrived from the Main Fire Station and Adelsgade

Station. Still, the firemen managed to get the fire under control in about an

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. 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.

On Nov 25 they initiated the article about the fire with

“tonight at 01:00 a fire occured at Copenhagens Lamp and Chandelier factory..”.

On the 26 they write “yesterday, The burned Lamp and Chandelier factory at St. Kongensgade 63, was in a sad condition ….”

(2023-08-06, 09:32 PM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]On Nov 25 they initiated the article about the fire with

“tonight at 01:00 a fire occured at Copenhagens Lamp and Chandelier factory..”.

On the 26 they write “yesterday, The burned Lamp and Chandelier factory at St. Kongensgade 63, was in a sad condition ….”

Thanks! That's consistent with what I understood from the Google Translate.

Hi guys, this is my first post here. I have been lurking and following discussions here for a couple of years as parapsychology is a very interesting topic, but never had need to write something. However, this conversation about the Jensen case is very interesting so I decided to say something about it. Here are my two cents and pardon my English as I am not a native speaker:
 
In his paper “A Perfect Case? Emil Jensen in the Mediumship of Indridi Indridason, the Fire in Copenhagen”, Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 59, Part 223 Erlendur Haraldsson claims that there was no normal explanation available that could have explained the information given by the medium. However, I think that is not entirely correct.
 
As Max_B has shown at the time of the seance there was a telegram station working. That is in sharp contrast with the main witnesses reports who claim in 1910. (Kvaran) and 1922. (Nielsson) that “no telegraphic connection between Iceland and the outside world had been established, so there were no means of recognising that event” (see the paper, page 205). I will not go in detail here as Max_B had elaborated this discrepancy.
 
There was criticism regarding the news the station had been receiving from the English receiver. Haraldsson said that the station was receiving only major world news and that the fire in Copenhagen was a minor event. That might be correct. However, we don’t know that for sure. In the telegram column of the Horsens Social Demokrat published on November 25, 1905. there was a report about the fire dated on November 24. So, that means that there was a telegram feed about the fire. Horsens is some 170 kilometres away from Copenhagen. In that time Iceland was part of the Danish Kingdom and the Marconi station most probably was receiving news from Denmark, so I wouldn’t exclude out of hand a possibility of the telegram feed about the fire.
 
On page 222 of the paper, Haraldsson says: “Kaare Claudewitz of Copenhagen suggested that Indridason might have read an obituary of Emil Jensen in a Danish newspaper. We jointly checked this possibility. No obituary of Emil Jensen was found in Politiken or Berlingske Tidende.” However, the obituary was published in the Danneborg newspapers on 4.8.1898. and it contains the following information (rough translation):
 
“Our dearly beloved, faithful brother, Fabrikant Thomas Emil Jensen, was called away today by the Lord by a gentle and quiet death. Copenhagen, August 8, 1898. On behalf of my sister and myself (names of the brother and the sister) The funeral will take place from Trinity Church on Tuesday 9 August.”
 
And now here is the sentence from the medium where he mentions Emile Jensen that was recorded during the séance on 11.12.1905. almost three weeks after Jensen allegedly appeared on November 24, page 216:
 
“It (my Christian name) is Emil. My name: Emil Jensen, yes! I have no children. Yes, (I was a bachelor). No, (I was not so young when I died). I have siblings, but not here in heaven.”
 
The medium didn’t say anything that hadn't been published in the obituary. According to Haraldsson, this report comes from the Minute Books that cover the period from December 4th, 1905, to January 6th, 1906, and from September 9th, 1907, to March 1908, and a few other séances. The Minute Books are the earliest source, and they contain no information about the alleged reading that happened on November 24. The first mention of the Fire in Copenhagen is in reports from 1910. (Kvaran) and 1922. (Nielsson), 5 and 17 years after the event allegedly happened. I find that very unusual and here is why. In the references section of the paper Haraldsson mentions the following work that was published in 1906.: “Kvaran, E. H. (1906) Dularfull fyrirbrigdi er borid hafa fyrir Tilraunafelags-menn I Reykjavik 1904–1906.” [Mysterious Phenomena Occurring to Members of the Experimental Society in Reykjavik, 1904–1906]. Apparently, this work doesn’t mention the Fire in Copenhagen reading despite the fact it was a marvellous event. If the work had mentioned the fire event, Haraldsson would had surely mentioned it in his paper, but he didn't. I just wonder why Kvaran omitted the fire reading from his 1906. work. That fact is indeed strange.
 
On the surface this case looks excellent. However, I think that Max_B criticism still stands. Also, beside the telegram hoax possibility there is also a possibility that Kvaran and Nielsson made up the story years after it allegedly happened. The strongest argument for that possibility comes from the fact that the event wasn’t mentioned in the earliest sources mentioned in the Haraldsson’s paper despite being so marvellous. I am not claiming 100% that the Fire in Copenhagen is a hoax, but it surely isn’t a perfect case.

Welcome to the forum MarcusF !

(2023-08-09, 09:08 AM)MarcusF Wrote: [ -> ]Hi guys, this is my first post here. I have been lurking and following discussions here for a couple of years as parapsychology is a very interesting topic, but never had need to write something. However, this conversation about the Jensen case is very interesting so I decided to say something about it. Here are my two cents and pardon my English as I am not a native speaker:
 
In his paper “A Perfect Case? Emil Jensen in the Mediumship of Indridi Indridason, the Fire in Copenhagen”, Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 59, Part 223 Erlendur Haraldsson claims that there was no normal explanation available that could have explained the information given by the medium. However, I think that is not entirely correct.
 
As Max_B has shown at the time of the seance there was a telegram station working. That is in sharp contrast with the main witnesses reports who claim in 1910. (Kvaran) and 1922. (Nielsson) that “no telegraphic connection between Iceland and the outside world had been established, so there were no means of recognising that event” (see the paper, page 205). I will not go in detail here as Max_B had elaborated this discrepancy.
 
There was criticism regarding the news the station had been receiving from the English receiver. Haraldsson said that the station was receiving only major world news and that the fire in Copenhagen was a minor event. That might be correct. However, we don’t know that for sure. In the telegram column of the Horsens Social Demokrat published on November 25, 1905. there was a report about the fire dated on November 24. So, that means that there was a telegram feed about the fire. Horsens is some 170 kilometres away from Copenhagen. In that time Iceland was part of the Danish Kingdom and the Marconi station most probably was receiving news from Denmark, so I wouldn’t exclude out of hand a possibility of the telegram feed about the fire.
 
On page 222 of the paper, Haraldsson says: “Kaare Claudewitz of Copenhagen suggested that Indridason might have read an obituary of Emil Jensen in a Danish newspaper. We jointly checked this possibility. No obituary of Emil Jensen was found in Politiken or Berlingske Tidende.” However, the obituary was published in the Danneborg newspapers on 4.8.1898. and it contains the following information (rough translation):
 
“Our dearly beloved, faithful brother, Fabrikant Thomas Emil Jensen, was called away today by the Lord by a gentle and quiet death. Copenhagen, August 8, 1898. On behalf of my sister and myself (names of the brother and the sister) The funeral will take place from Trinity Church on Tuesday 9 August.”
 
And now here is the sentence from the medium where he mentions Emile Jensen that was recorded during the séance on 11.12.1905. almost three weeks after Jensen allegedly appeared on November 24, page 216:
 
“It (my Christian name) is Emil. My name: Emil Jensen, yes! I have no children. Yes, (I was a bachelor). No, (I was not so young when I died). I have siblings, but not here in heaven.”
 
The medium didn’t say anything that hadn't been published in the obituary. According to Haraldsson, this report comes from the Minute Books that cover the period from December 4th, 1905, to January 6th, 1906, and from September 9th, 1907, to March 1908, and a few other séances. The Minute Books are the earliest source, and they contain no information about the alleged reading that happened on November 24. The first mention of the Fire in Copenhagen is in reports from 1910. (Kvaran) and 1922. (Nielsson), 5 and 17 years after the event allegedly happened. I find that very unusual and here is why. In the references section of the paper Haraldsson mentions the following work that was published in 1906.: “Kvaran, E. H. (1906) Dularfull fyrirbrigdi er borid hafa fyrir Tilraunafelags-menn I Reykjavik 1904–1906.” [Mysterious Phenomena Occurring to Members of the Experimental Society in Reykjavik, 1904–1906]. Apparently, this work doesn’t mention the Fire in Copenhagen reading despite the fact it was a marvellous event. If the work had mentioned the fire event, Haraldsson would had surely mentioned it in his paper, but he didn't. I just wonder why Kvaran omitted the fire reading from his 1906. work. That fact is indeed strange.
 
On the surface this case looks excellent. However, I think that Max_B criticism still stands. Also, beside the telegram hoax possibility there is also a possibility that Kvaran and Nielsson made up the story years after it allegedly happened. The strongest argument for that possibility comes from the fact that the event wasn’t mentioned in the earliest sources mentioned in the Haraldsson’s paper despite being so marvellous. I am not claiming 100% that the Fire in Copenhagen is a hoax, but it surely isn’t a perfect case.

Most of the points you raise have been addressed in prior posts. I agree that it's too strong to call the Copenhagen fire a perfect case. But a good normal explanation isn't there either.

The obituary point you raise was answered here. The telegraphy point was answered here - basically it seems there is a true sense in which telegraphy came to Iceland only in 1906. Remember the Icelandic Marconi station only got transmissions from Poldhu not anywhere in Denmark. Having done Danish and Icelandic newspaper database searches and read key items including the Horsens telegram my conclusion is that the lack of any Icelandic publication about the Copenhagen fire in 1905 anyway, together with the unlikelihood that the fire would've been considered world news worthy of transmission from Poldhu to Iceland, means it's improbable the story was sent by Marconi transmission to Iceland. That there were telegrams carrying the story within Denmark isn't a surprise.

The new point you raise that is important is that Kvaran 1906 seems not to mention the Copenhagen fire. We can infer that because Haraldsson doesn't cite it as a source of info on the incident. With the current facts I think the strongest argument a skeptic could make holds the case was made up later so there's no need to explain it as Marconi tranmission based fraud. On the other hand I don't think the lack of mention in the Kvaran 1906 source means anything. Haraldsson never cites Kvaran 1906 for any specific information on Jensen. The only sources he gives other than the minutes books telling us anything about Jensen of value for identification in his book or article are Nielson 1922 and Kvaran 1910. He wanted more info on Jensen but couldn't find it in the sources he had. It wasn't until he checked the 1905 seance minutes that he unexpectedly could find specific enough Jensen info to make an attempt at identification possible. He disappointingly never was able to find the minutes books covering the Copenhagen fire date. That's a very central point btw: it isn't that the Copenhagen fire case wasn't where it was supposed to be in the minutes, it was that Haraldsson couldn't find the minutes book covering the days November 24 and 25. But it looks like in 1906 Kvaran didn't find the Jensen communications interesting enough to write about even though we know from the 1905 seance minutes books that he had info at that time to put in his 1906 publication. In his book Haraldsson calls Kvaran 1906 an article so probably there wasn't enough space to cover that much. This all makes it look less likely that fraud happened. If they were all in on faking the Jensen thing as Max argues why wouldn't they fake verification of his identity using the obituary info they secretly got and used to trick everyone? That scenario doesn't make sense. I say the best explanation of the Copenhagen fire case is paranormal but it isn't a perfect case either.

(2023-08-09, 09:08 AM)MarcusF Wrote: [ -> ]Hi guys, this is my first post here. I have been lurking and following discussions here for a couple of years as parapsychology is a very interesting topic, but never had need to write something. However, this conversation about the Jensen case is very interesting so I decided to say something about it. Here are my two cents and pardon my English as I am not a native speaker:
 
In his paper “A Perfect Case? Emil Jensen in the Mediumship of Indridi Indridason, the Fire in Copenhagen”, Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 59, Part 223 Erlendur Haraldsson claims that there was no normal explanation available that could have explained the information given by the medium. However, I think that is not entirely correct.
 
As Max_B has shown at the time of the seance there was a telegram station working. That is in sharp contrast with the main witnesses reports who claim in 1910. (Kvaran) and 1922. (Nielsson) that “no telegraphic connection between Iceland and the outside world had been established, so there were no means of recognising that event” (see the paper, page 205). I will not go in detail here as Max_B had elaborated this discrepancy.
 
There was criticism regarding the news the station had been receiving from the English receiver. Haraldsson said that the station was receiving only major world news and that the fire in Copenhagen was a minor event. That might be correct. However, we don’t know that for sure. In the telegram column of the Horsens Social Demokrat published on November 25, 1905. there was a report about the fire dated on November 24. So, that means that there was a telegram feed about the fire. Horsens is some 170 kilometres away from Copenhagen. In that time Iceland was part of the Danish Kingdom and the Marconi station most probably was receiving news from Denmark, so I wouldn’t exclude out of hand a possibility of the telegram feed about the fire.
 
On page 222 of the paper, Haraldsson says: “Kaare Claudewitz of Copenhagen suggested that Indridason might have read an obituary of Emil Jensen in a Danish newspaper. We jointly checked this possibility. No obituary of Emil Jensen was found in Politiken or Berlingske Tidende.” However, the obituary was published in the Danneborg newspapers on 4.8.1898. and it contains the following information (rough translation):
 
“Our dearly beloved, faithful brother, Fabrikant Thomas Emil Jensen, was called away today by the Lord by a gentle and quiet death. Copenhagen, August 8, 1898. On behalf of my sister and myself (names of the brother and the sister) The funeral will take place from Trinity Church on Tuesday 9 August.”
 
And now here is the sentence from the medium where he mentions Emile Jensen that was recorded during the séance on 11.12.1905. almost three weeks after Jensen allegedly appeared on November 24, page 216:
 
“It (my Christian name) is Emil. My name: Emil Jensen, yes! I have no children. Yes, (I was a bachelor). No, (I was not so young when I died). I have siblings, but not here in heaven.”
 
The medium didn’t say anything that hadn't been published in the obituary. According to Haraldsson, this report comes from the Minute Books that cover the period from December 4th, 1905, to January 6th, 1906, and from September 9th, 1907, to March 1908, and a few other séances. The Minute Books are the earliest source, and they contain no information about the alleged reading that happened on November 24. The first mention of the Fire in Copenhagen is in reports from 1910. (Kvaran) and 1922. (Nielsson), 5 and 17 years after the event allegedly happened. I find that very unusual and here is why. In the references section of the paper Haraldsson mentions the following work that was published in 1906.: “Kvaran, E. H. (1906) Dularfull fyrirbrigdi er borid hafa fyrir Tilraunafelags-menn I Reykjavik 1904–1906.” [Mysterious Phenomena Occurring to Members of the Experimental Society in Reykjavik, 1904–1906]. Apparently, this work doesn’t mention the Fire in Copenhagen reading despite the fact it was a marvellous event. If the work had mentioned the fire event, Haraldsson would had surely mentioned it in his paper, but he didn't. I just wonder why Kvaran omitted the fire reading from his 1906. work. That fact is indeed strange.
 
On the surface this case looks excellent. However, I think that Max_B criticism still stands. Also, beside the telegram hoax possibility there is also a possibility that Kvaran and Nielsson made up the story years after it allegedly happened. The strongest argument for that possibility comes from the fact that the event wasn’t mentioned in the earliest sources mentioned in the Haraldsson’s paper despite being so marvellous. I am not claiming 100% that the Fire in Copenhagen is a hoax, but it surely isn’t a perfect case.

I wasn't even aware that Haraldsson didn't actually have any minutes of the seance from the 24th November 1905, or just how few information sources he was relying upon, so thanks for that.

I only came at this from checking Haraldsson's extremely strong claim that Iceland did not have telegraphy at that time. He then goes into detail debunking carrier pigeons or even wilder theories of prearranged arson. But there is a commemorative plaque at Hofdi House, Reykjavik, stating to the whole world just when telecommunications actually started in Iceland...



Haraldsson admitted to me he knew about this. So why did he deliberately leave this information out of his 'Perfect Case' paper... just to make the case stronger than it was, as far as I can see, because including this information would have weakened his claim.

And when you dig a little deeper, the whole thing falls completely apart... it's not even a thing... it's only been popularized by Haraldsson. I despise this sort of deception.

(2023-08-09, 08:04 PM)RViewer88 Wrote: [ -> ]Most of the points you raise have been addressed in prior posts. I agree that it's too strong to call the Copenhagen fire a perfect case. But a good normal explanation isn't there either.

The obituary point you raise was answered here. The telegraphy point was answered here - basically it seems there is a true sense in which telegraphy came to Iceland only in 1906. Remember the Icelandic Marconi station only got transmissions from Poldhu not anywhere in Denmark. Having done Danish and Icelandic newspaper database searches and read key items including the Horsens telegram my conclusion is that the lack of any Icelandic publication about the Copenhagen fire in 1905 anyway, together with the unlikelihood that the fire would've been considered world news worthy of transmission from Poldhu to Iceland, means it's improbable the story was sent by Marconi transmission to Iceland. That there were telegrams carrying the story within Denmark isn't a surprise.

The new point you raise that is important is that Kvaran 1906 seems not to mention the Copenhagen fire. We can infer that because Haraldsson doesn't cite it as a source of info on the incident. With the current facts I think the strongest argument a skeptic could make holds the case was made up later so there's no need to explain it as Marconi tranmission based fraud. On the other hand I don't think the lack of mention in the Kvaran 1906 source means anything. Haraldsson never cites Kvaran 1906 for any specific information on Jensen. The only sources he gives other than the minutes books telling us anything about Jensen of value for identification in his book or article are Nielson 1922 and Kvaran 1910. He wanted more info on Jensen but couldn't find it in the sources he had. It wasn't until he checked the 1905 seance minutes that he unexpectedly could find specific enough Jensen info to make an attempt at identification possible. He disappointingly never was able to find the minutes books covering the Copenhagen fire date. That's a very central point btw: it isn't that the Copenhagen fire case wasn't where it was supposed to be in the minutes, it was that Haraldsson couldn't find the minutes book covering the days November 24 and 25. But it looks like in 1906 Kvaran didn't find the Jensen communications interesting enough to write about even though we know from the 1905 seance minutes books that he had info at that time to put in his 1906 publication. In his book Haraldsson calls Kvaran 1906 an article so probably there wasn't enough space to cover that much. This all makes it look less likely that fraud happened. If they were all in on faking the Jensen thing as Max argues why wouldn't they fake verification of his identity using the obituary info they secretly got and used to trick everyone? That scenario doesn't make sense. I say the best explanation of the Copenhagen fire case is paranormal but it isn't a perfect case either.

Hi, thanks for the comment but I don't agree with your interpretation of the data.

This is what you say about the obituary argument:
 
„Since the obituaries did not include all the veridical information Indridi told, nor information about where in Copenhagen he lived, it is not possible that Indridi could have gained all of the information through these obituaries and consciously or subconsciously used it, nor is it possible that someone else could have told Indridi the information after having read the obituaries.“
 
This is what the obituary says:
 
„Our dearly beloved, faithful brother, Fabrikant Thomas Emil Jensen, was called away today by the Lord by a gentle and quiet death. Copenhagen, August 8, 1898. On behalf of my sister and myself (names of the brother and the sister) The funeral will take place from Trinity Church on Tuesday 9 August.”
 
And this is what the medium says, Haraldsson, page 216:
 
“It (my Christian name) is Emil. My name: Emil Jensen, yes! I have no children. Yes, (I was a bachelor). No, (I was not so young when I died). I have siblings, but not here in heaven.”
 
All what the medium said is easily extrapolated from the obituary information. No need for the paranormal explanation at all.

Regarding the Marconi station. Can you prove that the station didn't receive telegrams from Denmark? The Cornwall station surely got telegrams from Denmark that were intended for Iceland. I repeat, Iceland was part of the Danish Kingdom at the time. The fact that the fire wasn't mentioned in any local newspapers doesn't suggest that the telegram is non existent. Perhaps, local editors didn't put it in print as they considered it not interesting for the local population. My assumption is equally probable as yours. At the end, why in the hell the key witnesses from 1910. (Kvaran) and 1922. (Nielsson) blatantly lie when they say that in 1905. Iceland "had no telegraphic connection with the outside world" (Haraldsson, page 205), if they have a perfect case?
 
Also, you claim:
 
"But it looks like in 1906 Kvaran didn't find the Jensen communications interesting enough to write about even though we know from the 1905 seance minutes books that he had info at that time to put in his 1906 publication. In his book Haraldsson calls Kvaran 1906 an article so probably there wasn't enough space to cover that much. This all makes it look less likely that fraud happened. If they were all in on faking the Jensen thing as Max argues why wouldn't they fake verification of his identity using the obituary info they secretly got and used to trick everyone? That scenario doesn't make sense. I say the best explanation of the Copenhagen fire case is paranormal but it isn't a perfect case either."
 
I would say - too much suppositions. The fact is that the Copenhagen fire, a marvellous event by itself, an ultimate proof of paranormal, that was allegedly corroborated on Christmas 1905. didn't make it in the book Kvaran published in 1906. How can such an event be not interesting enough? And there was no need for them to "verify" the identity as they had already knew from the obituary that Jensen was a real person.

I will respond to MarcusF's points one by one.

>This is what you say about the obituary argument

That isn't what I said. It's what  said, it's his post I put the link to. Before Wanderer posted here I was convinced by Max that the whole Indridi case was a fraud. Wanderer led me to believe Max is wrong and the Indridi case is paranormal.

>All what the medium said is easily extrapolated from the obituary information. No need for the paranormal explanation at all.

This isn't really correct because the obituaries for Thomas Emil Jensen that are known are all very short on detail. A typical obituary today will list all those important to the person who predeceased them, and all important people who survived them. Jensen's obituary says nothing about his parents. From the obituary you quote one would think he only had one brother and one sister. He actually had four sisters and two brothers and they all were alive when he died. Given the obituaries alone it would've been possible that Jensen was a widower, a bachelor, a divorcee, that he had dead children, no children, or that his children were too young to be involved in the obituary's composition. The only thing the obituary reasonably rules out is that he had a surviving wife because you'd think she'd be involved in writing the obituary. A fraudster reconstructing Jensen's life from his obituaries would have had the fake Jensen say he had a sister and a brother. That would have been inaccurate. Instead Jensen said he had "siblings" who were all alive, and that was accurate. Also Jensen died in 1898. The communication sittings happened 1905. It could have been that any of his other siblings died from 1898 to 1905 and you wouldn't know that from obituaries so it couldn't have been safely inferred in 1905 that all his siblings were alive from those sources. The closeness of Jensen's residence to the scene of the fire was not apparent from the obituaries either. Only Haraldsson figured that out it seems. That detail increases the sense of authenticity of Jensen as a spirit communicator.

>Can you prove that the station didn't receive telegrams from Denmark?

Can you prove they got telegrams by Marconi trans from Denmark about anything not considered world news? What I did do was check if an Icelandic paper ever published anything about the Copenhagen fire in 1905. My searches didn't turn anything up but I can't know for sure if I missed something. It wasn't in Isafold the next day even though they had a Marconi column.

>The Cornwall station surely got telegrams from Denmark that were intended for Iceland.

It's odd that you complain about my suppositions and then you say this with no evidence.

>Perhaps, local editors didn't put it in print as they considered it not interesting for the local population.

This looks to me like an attempt to handwave off a failed prediction of the Marconi fraud theory. It looked like it was a big deal that Max found the Isafold Nov 25 1905 Marconi column, like it was the end of the Indridi case, I thought that. Then Wanderer translated it and showed it said nothing about the Copenhagen fire. It can't be both ways. If there was the expectation there'd be evidence of a Marconi transmission published in Iceland about the Copen fire but there's no evidence of that, well that counts against the Marconi trans fraud hypothesis.

>Also, can you completely exclude the possibility of someone sending a telegram from Denmark to Iceland for Kvaran or some other member of his company?

This is more silly prove a negative stuff. In spontaneous cases basically never is it true that all normal explanations are totally ruled out. That's why experiments need to be done. Even then there are no perfect experiments. But when there is no evidence for the fraud scenario it is assuming what's being argued about to just say well definitely fraud anyway. I find it kind of absurd to argue that the obituaries were used for the fraud when the fraudsters didn't provide more specific info from the obituaries. Why didn't the fraudsters specifically give Jensen's brother and sister's names from the fake Jensen as they were in the obituary? Even Jensen's full name Thomas Emil Jensen wasn't provided in the seances only Emil Jensen despite the full name being in the obituary. The Jensen communication looks like how a lot of psi and after death communications do, a weird mix of accurate specific info and more vague info. Not what would be expected of a fraudster who had specific info available. Also why did Jensen say nothing of himself the first time he showed up other than that he was a manufacturer and only in later sittings give more info? The idea would be that the fraudsters had the obituary from the start to know he was a manufacturer. This difficulty in getting info out of communicators is normal for real mediumship but not what would be expected of fraud. 

>At the end, why in the hell the key witnesses from 1910. (Kvaran) and 1922. (Nielsson) blatantly lie when they say that in 1905. Iceland "had no telegraphic connection with the outside world" (Haraldsson, page 205), if they have a perfect case?

You just ignore the post of Wanderer I directed you to that counters this idea very well.

>I would say - too much suppositions. The fact is that the Copenhagen fire, a marvellous event by itself, an ultimate proof of paranormal, that was allegedly corroborated on Christmas 1905. didn't make it in the book Kvaran published in 1906. How can such an event be not interesting enough? And there was no need for them to "verify" the identity as they had already knew from the obituary that Jensen was a real person.

Like I said according to Haraldsson it's an article not a book, so what could be covered would be limited. What suppositions? The key point isn't a supposition at all but a fact. Kvaran 1906 doesn't seem to give any of the communications from Jensen based on how Haraldsson cites it. I don't know if it even gives the name Jensen. For whatever reason Kvaran in that article didn't wade into the Jensen topic. That makes it no surprise that the Copenhagen fire case isn't mentioned there. Was he mainly or just interested in the physical phenomena in that article? I don't know because I don't have the article.

Also you don't understand the point being made about the verification. The argument you and others make is that the Experimental Society were fraudsters trying to hoodwink people with paranormal marvels that were all fake. But according to Haraldsson there is no evidence that they ever tried to prove to their supposed victims that the Jensen who communicated was a verifiable person. They never went and pretended to discover the obituaries or other docs about Jensen they had all along and go to their victims and say "look it was all real!" Even in talks and other things years later Experimental Society members made discussing Jensen they don't bring up anything about how he was proven real. Why bother to pull a fraud specifically based on real info about someone who died only to make nothing of that info? They could much more easily have made someone up out of thin air. This fraud scenario doesn't make sense.

(2023-08-05, 09:20 PM)RViewer88 Wrote: [ -> ]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.

(2023-08-06, 05:41 PM)RViewer88 Wrote: [ -> ]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.

These are very good arguments. I agree with them.

(2023-08-09, 08:04 PM)RViewer88 Wrote: [ -> ]With the current facts I think the strongest argument a skeptic could make holds the case was made up later so there's no need to explain it as Marconi tranmission based fraud.

Yes, but even if that were the case, it would still not explain why they did not attempt to verify the veridical information about Jensen, or at least tell people that they had verified all of the veridical information about Jensen. It would also not explain why they choose to say that it was the Jensen communicator that experienced the fire, despite not knowing that he lived two doors away from the fire. And if they would somehow have been aware that he lived two doors away from the fire, then why not mention it to anyone?