Indridi Indridason's contact with Emil Jensen

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”

“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

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. 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.

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 ….”

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.

[Ninshub]

Welcome to the forum MarcusF !

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.

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.