Indridi Indridason's contact with Emil Jensen

Ok! one down. How many more to go? Anyone know Braude's or mishlove's opinion of this guy or more credible cases? Regarding "perfmomed in the dark" I recall leslie Kean presnting a reasonable explanation. Anyway sorry for my Laziness in looking this stuff up or if some of my queries have already been addressed

Can't recall for sure but I thought Braude cited the Copenhagen fire case somewhere, maybe in Immortal Remains, as good evidence of psi. Braude's a very smart guy. I don't find him too reliable on case details however. He's a typical philosopher, good with abstract matters, not so great, and actually too flippant, about precisely nailing down all the details of psychical research cases, which is really really important because if you don't do that, stuff like what's happened in this thread to the Indridi mediumship has a habit of happening. I'm pretty much sure that if it hadn't been for Michael Nahm, Braude would've decided the Felix Circle physical mediumship was largely authentic. I don't know if he's commented on the physical aspects of the Indridi mediumship specifically.

so who should we be contrasting Indridi with? I think the most evidential physical medium of all time is D.D. Home because of how often his seances were in light including daylight. Also phenomena happened around him indoors and outdoors. Plus he gave such a massive number of seances over the course of his life and attracted a shitload of hostile skepticism during his life. A LOT of people really wanted to expose the guy and worked hard to do it but no satisfactory and well-evidenced explanation ever was produced. The key thing is that a bunch of highly intelligent people who were aggressively skeptical about his abilities sat with him but never solved the mystery. It's wrong to say as Braude loves to that he pretty much definitely was never caught in fraud. But I know of only one definite Home case where the observation of fraud was seemingly unambiguous and we have first-hand testimony to support the accusation. BUUUUT this is the big thing: the guy who said he caught Home in fraud also said he was as certain that Home had an anomalous power of remote influencing as he was that Home resorted to fraud when the power left him. He said the power controlled Home and not the other way around, so Home couldn't make it happen when it didn't want to happen. This guy btw absolutely hated Home and was hellbent on exposing him as nothing but a fraud. He would actually grab Home in the middle of seances he sat in on. Unsurprisingly this led to a lot of mutual hostility. Despite all that stuff in the end he was certain Home had an anomalous power. The details of what I'm talking about are in a paper by Zofia Weaver in JSPR, "Daniel Dunglas Home Revisited - Evidence Old and New."