- Forum Info
- Additional Info
- Ratings
- Signature
- Contact
Forum Info
Joined:
2023-08-08
2023-08-08
Status:
Offline
Last Visit:
2024-11-19, 07:43 AM
Time Spent Online:
18 Hours, 22 Minutes, 45 Seconds
Additional Info
Total Posts:
13 (0.03 posts per day | 0.02 percent of total posts)
[Find All Posts]
Total Threads:
0 (0 threads per day | 0 percent of total threads)
Members Referred:
0
0
| MarcusF's Most Liked Post | ||
| Post Subject | Post Date/Time | Numbers of Likes |
| RE: Indridi Indridason's contact with Emil Jensen | 2023-08-09, 09:08 AM | 3 |
| Thread Subject | Forum Name | |
| Indridi Indridason's contact with Emil Jensen |
Extended Consciousness Phenomena
Deathbed Visions, After-Death Communications, Mediumship
|
|
| Post Message | ||
| 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” (https://www.homepage-baukasten-dateien.de/sterbebegleitung-jenseitskontakte/EH%20-%20Perfect%20case%20Indridi.pdf), 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. | ||
| MarcusF's Received and Given Likes | ||
| Likes Received | Likes Given | |
| Last week | 0 | 0 |
| Last month | 0 | 0 |
| Last 3 months | 2 | 2 |
| Last 6 months | 3 | 4 |
| Last 12 months | 3 | 8 |
| All Time | 8 | 14 |
| Most liked by | ||
| Sciborg_S_Patel | 3 | 38% |
| Ninshub | 2 | 25% |
| Silence | 2 | 25% |
| sbu | 1 | 13% |
| Most liked | ||
| sbu | 8 | 57% |
| Sciborg_S_Patel | 3 | 21% |
| Ninshub | 1 | 7% |
| Max_B | 1 | 7% |
| Obiwan | 1 | 7% |
Ratings
Here's what users think of MarcusF