Scole Experiments and the future of mediumship studies

Thermal imaging is a different technology which creates images from thermal radiation given off by objects. Starlight night vision cameras can create images under very low visible light conditions. I don't know if thermal imaging or starlight night vision was available during the time of the Scole experiments. Infrared film for cameras was available at the time of the Scole experiments.

Thanks for the correction. As for the existence of said technology (Thermal Imaging), thermal-eye.com says the technology was avaible for public ( that is, there were market distributions of said type of cameras ) in 1995, though some were avaible as far as 1993, but aparently not in mass production. ¿When exactly where the Scole experiments deviced and done?
 
The scole experiments were done in the 90's so the technology may have been available, but it would have been very expensive. I think it would be interesting to try thermal imaging during a physical seance, but I'm not sure if it would work well because things that are the same temperature would be shown as the same color so the materialized objects might not show up clearly against background objects. ( There are some infra-red photos of physical séances here: http://www.survivalebooks.org/Webber/webberphotos.htm an explanation of the source of the photos is here: http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/05/medium-jack-webber.html )
 
I'm sorry. I did not mean to be rude – only to make my point as clear as possible. I have been so much in contact with believing people (and skeptics) that it is natural for me to take everything with a pinch of salt and verify details if it is possible. When you wondered a normal state of affairs so I guessed (I wrote only "seems") you did not know the situation. BTW, excluding my guess concerning your knowledge, what is wrong in my points?

Apology accepted :)

I agree with your observations that people participating in sittings like those at Scole sometimes do not appreciate the disciplines necessary to exclude fraud as a possibility or to at least minimise the risk of it being used as a plausible explanation for the phenomena witnessed. I'm not sure this wholly applies to people like David Fontana (not that you suggested this), though of course he is as fallible as any other human being (or was). I also agree that the personal beliefs of the participants are, in themselves, of little value as evidence unless they can give a good reason why they hold their beliefs.

As far as I can see the disciplines necessary to ensure that the evidence is reliable are not necessarily scientific disciplines as such, as much as they are the disciplines associated with gathering any kind of evidence which the reporters are expecting others to accept. Science looks for the ability to replicate phenomena in a controlled environment usually, which is a feature largely absent in the case of Scole as far as I can recall, so we are reliant on the testimony of the reports (Keen and Fontana and others).

I also agree that the participants in such circles are usually there for personal evidence of survival or to witness the phenomena and are not necessarily looking for evidence that will be acceptable to the wider world.

As far as Scole is concerned we have two main types of information source:

a) the observations of attendees such as Fontana;
b) the explanations given by the ostensible communicators.

Unless we know David Fontana personally, it is difficult to objectively assess his evidence. My own view is that he seemed rational and sensible to me and described what he saw clearly and that he wasn't trying to 'sell' the experience to the reader. This is of course a purely subjective opinion. I have no reason to doubt his objectivity based on his report about Scole. My view of Montague Keen is that whilst I do not doubt his observations, he did seem to me more of a 'believer' and as such may have been more inclined to accept phenomena at face value but that does not mean his testimony was not correct either. This too is purely a subjective opinion.

To me, the information from the ostensible communicators is only evidential in so far as it can be validated objectively (mostly not).
 
Last edited:
I (searching Prescott blog) found this quote posted by a member. ¿Is it related to the so-called "Alan Box" which the mediums alledgedly managed to supernaturally change?

"I am an SPR member, but regretfully must agree with your critical article about Scole. And there is one further item which you didn’t spot, but which is clear evidence of fraud (it is mentioned in the report): the fact that one of the exposed film canisters contained a strip of impressive-looking kabbalistic writings and drawings, which the intrepid investigator Tony Cornell showed as having been traced from a popular book on kabbalism. Cornell showed how the material could have been put onto tracing paper then exposed to produce an image identical to that obtained. He even found the marks where the tracing paper had been fixed against the film and exposed to create the fraud. This was a film which was in the easy-to-open box created by one of the mediums. It is clear proof of fraud and really shows that the SPR people at Scole were taken in. Yet Keen and Fontana would never admit that they may have been fooled. Very sad.” – Professor Peter Wadhams. Cambridge"

So far, I've been unable to find the Cornell article critiquing Scole, but if it's true, I think it lends a bit of suspicious towards the honesty and potential trickery the mediums could had used.

It seems to me it is not necessarily clear proof of fraud even if true, though it is suggestive of fraud. The question is: how did the images actually come to be on the film and by whom?

This is down to the security applied to the film canisters and whether or not they were ever in a position where a human agent could carry out the alleged fraud. If they were, then fraud is a possibility and perhaps even a probability to the neutral observer. It is not necessarily clear proof of fraud unless we are convinced the involvement of discarnate agencies is an impossibility. If we accept that the image may have reached the film by 'non-physical hands' then as there is no explanation by the purported communicators as to how they created the image (as far as I can recall) there is nothing to exclude a method which could be used equally by sitter or communicator alike. I have to say that if the ostensible communicators were responsible for it then their method shows a lack of forethought - they might have at least explained how the image was produced :)
 
It seems to me it is not necessarily clear proof of fraud even if true, though it is suggestive of fraud. The question is: how did the images actually come to be on the film and by whom?

Well, aparently this happened in the "Alan Box", which was found by Gauld to be easily open. He puts this:

"The Alan' Box was involved in several of the cases in which ostensibly paranormal markings appeared on 35 mm films. The fact, therefore, that it could quickly and readily be opened (and conversely closed again) by slightly rotating one of the arms that held the hasp, squeezing and freeing the hasp and flipping back the lid, is of some importance. Since there seems to be a certain hesitation in admitting that this could have been done without breaking the red enamel that covered the screw-head on the arm (something which I did at least a dozen times), I will quote from a statement kindly supplied by a colleague and fellow SPR member to whom I showed the box on the same day that a technician and I discovered the above method of opening it..." - Alan Gauld"

So the how would be just replacing the films in the box while at dark, and using a book to produce the images before the events. I've heard they used this sort of things in the hands and foot to be restrained in their sits by wristhands, but Brian Dunning ( the guy of skeptoid) put in a podcast that in the Scole Experiment original report they say that the mediums provided their own wristhands with a sort of glowing light, and that this can easily be faked and used to escape the restriction.

I'm not claiming that they made cheat, but if it's true what this reporters are saying, then it's quite suggestive of fraud. Gauld, again, for example, suggest it follows a method of production:

""Among the marked films of which the claim to paranormality rests on the 'Alan' box is the so-called 'Dragon' film. This film was sent to me in the hope that I might help to make sense of the pictorial symbolism, but when I discovered that the images on it had all been taken from one book, and that they bore strong indications of having been traced on (or in two cases copied freehand onto) acetate paper before being transferred to film—a supposition which I confirmed by having an artistic friend, who did not see the original film, produce an independent version on acetate paper (see Figures 1 to 4b) — I cannot pretend that I did not develop certain reservations. Others of the films have similar characteristics."

I've found some other quotes, but I guess those are the strongests.
 
That's how it could be done, not necessarily how it was done as far as I can see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it wasn't at least poor control, and it certainly suggests fraud was possible in that instance.

'Certain reservations' is a good way to put it :)
 
Last edited:
So the how would be just replacing the films in the box while at dark, and using a book to produce the images before the events. I've heard they used this sort of things in the hands and foot to be restrained in their sits by wristhands, but Brian Dunning ( the guy of skeptoid) put in a podcast that in the Scole Experiment original report they say that the mediums provided their own wristhands with a sort of glowing light, and that this can easily be faked and used to escape the restriction.

Did you read carefully what Dunning wrote and do you rely on his word?

About the wristbands (p. 179):
The Scole Report said:
Members of the Group wore Velcro wristbands carrying luminous strips which had been 'charged up' by exposure to electric light beforehand.

Later, when sitting were suspended or ended, we asked whether we could take them away in order to examine them more closely, and were immediately handed all eight.

. . . the sound of the Velcro provided some safeguard against unobserved removal of the wristbands.

I have much to read in the Scole Report, but it is interesting to do so after many years. I'll try to answer your questions and report what I'll find. As a principle I think one must find first all needed details and then try to construct a big picture containing all those details. Often critics stick only to a few details and forget even very important other details.
 
That's how it could be done, not how it was done as far as I can see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it wasn't at least poor control, and it certainly suggests fraud was possible in that instance.

'Certain reservations' is a good way to put it :)

Oh, of course you are right. I think that can be taken more as a critique towards the controls put to the Scole mediums, rather than to their integrity and honesty.
 
Did you read carefully what Dunning wrote and do you rely on his word?

I've read it a couple of times, so I think yes, although I'm open to be proven wrong. As for how much I rely on his word...well, not much, to be honest. I've found some errors in some of his podcast, despite claiming to have read the relevant documents, I take always special care in checking the majority or all of the posts after the podcast, that way I can see if some other person catch on something he forgot, or didn't put, that might be of interest. Thats also why I put what he wrote here, so I can receive some feedback from others who have the Scole report.

About the wristbands (p. 179):

I have much to read in the Scole Report, but it is interesting to do so after many years. I'll try to answer your questions and report what I'll find. As a principle I think one must find first all needed details and then try to construct a big picture containing all those details. Often critics stick only to a few details and forget even very important other details.

I see. As for the wristbands, it seems to me to be a bad quality control to check them after the sitting where all done, because they can perhaps be easily switched to regular ones when asked to see them. It would have been (in my opinion) better to check them right before the sitting, while they were sitting with them, using them, or while being put. The velcro sound doesn't seem to be the best issue at hand, because I've heard that before the sitting formely started, they sit at the dark hearing all sort of music for some reason (probably because the mediums told them that way the spirits could be enhanced), so the velcro sound could be covered, or distracted with other things.

I have much to read in the Scole Report, but it is interesting to do so after many years. I'll try to answer your questions and report what I'll find. As a principle I think one must find first all needed details and then try to construct a big picture containing all those details. Often critics stick only to a few details and forget even very important other details.

I hope you can provide as much details as possible, that way we can get to the bottom of how well designed were the Scole experiments. It would be interesting if you could provide also data from were the majority or the more noteworthy sittings where done, and of course, how was the nearby area. If there were doors, passages or the such nearby.
 
I've read it a couple of times, so I think yes, although I'm open to be proven wrong. As for how much I rely on his word...well, not much, to be honest. I've found some errors in some of his podcast, despite claiming to have read the relevant documents, I take always special care in checking the majority or all of the posts after the podcast, that way I can see if some other person catch on something he forgot, or didn't put, that might be of interest. Thats also why I put what he wrote here, so I can receive some feedback from others who have the Scole report.

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

I see. As for the wristbands, it seems to me to be a bad quality control to check them after the sitting where all done, because they can perhaps be easily switched to regular ones when asked to see them. It would have been (in my opinion) better to check them right before the sitting, while they were sitting with them, using them, or while being put. The velcro sound doesn't seem to be the best issue at hand, because I've heard that before the sitting formely started, they sit at the dark hearing all sort of music for some reason (probably because the mediums told them that way the spirits could be enhanced), so the velcro sound could be covered, or distracted with other things.

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Lussika, I've recently come in possession of the critiques done by West, Gauld and Cornell concerning the Scole Experiments. This three critiques appeared in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research Volume 58, which is a peer-reviewed Journal, and the three of them seem to be psychic investigators, so their critiques may be more worthy than the ones done by Brian Dunning. ¿Perhaps those are more suitable to be discussed?

In case you don't have those critiques but you want to analyze them in detail, just PM and I can send you the three of them, or any specific one you wish for.
 
Montague Keen died in 2004 I think. Or do I detect a note of sarcasm? :)

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I just though he had contacted him via e-mail because he said he asked him about some issues of the Scole Experiments. I asked him to check if I could ask him my own questions, I wasn't aware of his death 10 years ago.
 
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.

It's OK. Unfortunately I have now and then a rather harsh writing style when I am frustrated. Apologies for that. I did not know your difficulties in reading the posts. And I am also a foreigner here. But now I see that you are a real investigator.

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?).

1. – The laser hypothesis is untenable because the light points were also seen moving in mid-air. They were naturally not seen on the auditory tape recordings, but the recordings confirmed the observations when they were discussed.

2. and 3. – These faults were not made by Dunning, they were only in Wikipedia.

4. – Dunning wrote in Skeptoid that there were also other places and the information was missing only in Wiki.

5. – See my post #9 in this thread.

6. – You are right - Montague Keen said it was not so easy and Gauld said it was quite easy.

7. – The Spirit Team said that there was another rather bizarre reason. I have not read yet what the circumstances just before were.

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.

You are naturally right about the confirmation biases. But the Scole Report is not only recollections – Montague Keen took notes and then there were the auditory tapes.

I'll try to find that "a LED light on the table" episode in the book.

I had a short email exchange with Montague Keen and David Fontana. Unfortunately Montague has been dead already for many years.
 
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I just though he had contacted him via e-mail because he said he asked him about some issues of the Scole Experiments. I asked him to check if I could ask him my own questions, I wasn't aware of his death 10 years ago.

I do beg your pardon. :)
 
Lussika, I've recently come in possession of the critiques done by West, Gauld and Cornell concerning the Scole Experiments. This three critiques appeared in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research Volume 58, which is a peer-reviewed Journal, and the three of them seem to be psychic investigators, so their critiques may be more worthy than the ones done by Brian Dunning. ¿Perhaps those are more suitable to be discussed?

In case you don't have those critiques but you want to analyze them in detail, just PM and I can send you the three of them, or any specific one you wish for.

Thank you very much for this offer. That volume 58 is just The Scole Report and contains also these comments. I have not read them yet, but I will certainly have some thoughts about them later.

Naturally those three SPR commentators are much more important than skeptic Dunning. I remember that I did not agree with them in all their criticisms and it is interesting to see what I think now, after many years.
 
Last edited:
Just a little update before I reply. I've become aware that I was ( once again ) fooled by wikipedia. Check this:

"The Scole experiment was also criticized by the psychical researchers Tony Cornell, Alan Gauld and Donald West. Gauld wrote there was "quite a lot of indirect evidence" for fraud in the experiment, Cornell wrote normal explanations could be given for the séance phenomena and West wrote the Scole report was "sadly unconvincing" due to lack of scientific controls.[188][189][190]"

I used wikipedia to track down the critiques, and read them. However, when I decided to check the index of the volume to see if I could find anything else of interest for me in there, I became aware there was a reply to the critiques made by the authors. Wikipedia, for some reason, fails to put this despite that their three references (188, 189, and 190) come from exactly that same volume. I would had expected a " This critiques were replied to in the same volume (191) " or something like that at least.

Now I'm reading again both the critiques and the reply, so we'll see what I can take away from all this.
 
Okey, so I've been reading quite a lot in the Preecedings Volume 58. Mainly, the 3 critiques, the replies (three of them ), and 5 Appendixes, which include a general view of all the sitting, the Dragon Film controversy, and some scripts written by owners of home where the Scole Group did their stuff. Two are from Canada and one in California, and other is from Ibiza in the holiday camp of a dude I can't quite recall right now. Also, an appendix where it's detailed many of the objects that were remarkable, like the films, and a 1944 1 April "pristine new" newspaper that was also tested and confirmed to be from 1944. This newspaper was alledgedly apported.

Overall (so far!), I've find good things and bad things IMHO. About the good ones is that it's a lie that films with images where produced on the Alan Box. It's not true at all. However, it's also false that the films where only provided by the investigators. In the Californian sitting, Foy actually provided films in sealed film boxes which where checked, but not deeply ( that is, the films weren't actually seen). Many things happened in those sitting, including the sound of a trumpet ( this happened in the Ibiza holiday house sitting ), the Dragon film production, sounds, lights and whatnot which makes me think that it's implausible that the Scole Group faked many of them through hoax, however so far, I've found that it's quite possible that an assistant or a little group of them may have helped them (hypothetically speaking!) by getting either inside the Scole house, or the houses in the other places ( as they seem to be left unguarded ), as I see that explanation hasn't been ruled out. I've also seen some quotes on the internet about a magician talking about his experience there, and how he wouldn't be able to replicate them, unless with sophisticated equipment and preparation.

For example, in the Scole group, the dour leading to the sitting room doesn't seem to have been sealed. In the Ibiza sitting the principal room was actually closed with three locks, however there where many entrances that were merely closed and covered with black plastic with the assumption that they may not be open without being removed. Sadly, they never explain in detail how this plastic was put, so I can't say if it was that secure.

In the California sitting, no mention of the door being locked is mentioned at all, and in the one involving many NASA scientists (like 20 and stuff! ) and the such there isn't details about this neither, although it's claimed that the effect seen are less impressive than in other sitting, but they claim that it may be because the place of the sitting was changes in the last minute ( one day of difference ) and the Group didn't get used to the vibres, and the sheer number of skeptics make them more shy, or something like that. However, in this sitting there are occlusions, that is, the desks legs seem to be occluded by body parts like legs, and there is also some sound of foots.

As for the Laser hypothesis, apparently one of the three skeptics actually managed to replicate ( or at least, he claims...) the effects seem, and convinced two people who attended the sitting ( one I think was Gauld and the other was another parapsychologists).

And... thats what I've got so far. I'll be updating as I read more.
 
Back
Top