I feel uneasiness because apparently you did not become really aware what a misrepresentation that article is. The text reveals its quality even without knowing anything about the details of the case. I have already written rather much about that and it seems you have not taken that in account. I feel myself sad when proponents so often become victims of skeptical propaganda, believing more that rubbish than verified information. This time I mean this article in Skeptoid:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4179
Well, you are certainly correct that I didn't take into account what you wrote. But it was my mistake, since I read bad some of the firsts posts in this thread ( it was really late when I was reading it ) and so I ask your forgiveness for my embarassing attitude towards the search for the truth in the Scole. I've read them now again. So, to avoid further confusion, I'll put a list of the errors you found on Dunning, and you say me if you agree or if I misrpresented your positions (changing a few words in my phrasing or adding stuff to them ), or putting more points in the list. That way we can both know that I got the right information:
1.- The laser hypothesis put by Dunning doesn't stand because the tape recordings ( forgive my english here, but a tape recorder is a sort of machine that only detects sound or also detects light?) show that the lights were also suspended in mid-air and the place was dusty enough to make the laser trajectory visible.
2.- He got the years numbers wrong.
3.- He isn't a paranormal researcher.
4.- He misrepresent the data as to show as if the sitting where held only at Scole ( which, at least for me, was an assumption given the name of the Experiments, but he goes without excuse because he alledgedly readed the text ).
5.- He is right that no night vision deviced where allowed, but total darkness wasn't also true. I'll ask you here if you can be more specific of the amount of light. Quotes from the text can be helpfull.
6.- The box containing the films where constantly revised, but not easily openable ( I must ask you however, ¿didn't Gauld revised them and find that at least Alan's box was easy to open?).
7.- The Scole experiment ended because the effect ended (I've heard it ended just when the researchers wanted to add infrared cameras. ¿Is this true?).
I asked Montague Keen about that music and he said he did not think it would have been harmful for the observations. The situation is much better with the wristbands than you perhaps thought. There was often light enough to see if they were on the wrists and the hand movements were well visible a long time from the beginning of the séances. During very many séance hours trickery would have been noticed. There was even a LED light on the table in some séances illuminating the surroundings all the time.
What I find a bit complicated about this seanses (is it written like that?), is that at lot of what is reported wasn't filmed, so, ¿how possible is it that cognitive biases may affect the recolection of the events? I would also wish to know more about that tape recorder.
Also, ¿can you quote the sections about the LED lights? that seems interesting, though I must say that I've seen quite a few impressive tricks of magicians in my life with dim light. My primary concern is that if, at least in Scole, it was possible that someone from outside the room entered inside.
BTW, ¿how did you contacted Montague?, ¿does he have an e-mail or something?, He seems to reply fast.