The Scole Experiments

[Mike D.]

I recognise 1 name - Prof Archie Roy I assume was the professor of astronomy at Glasgow Uni from whom I got some lectures. He has an interest in psi powers and was known on campus for his SF books on slumbering psi powers - or so I'm told, I'm afraid while his astronomy book was good, I couldn't get past a page or two. He's also the author of "A Sense of Something Strange" which you can google on. Ho hum.

Wudang,

I wasn't aware that Prof. Roy was involved with the Scole Experiments. In what way was he involved?

Mike

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I got through the introductory material. Then I tried, I really tried, to convince myself to read all the details, knowing that infrared cameras were not allowed. I simply could not get myself to read it all knowing that.

~~ Paul

 

[JamesM]

I wasn't aware that Prof. Roy was involved with the Scole Experiments. In what way was he involved?

He sat with the Scole group on a few occasions, I think. I'll go and check the proceedings to see exactly what what he did, if no-one else gets there first.

 

[Mike D.]

I got through the introductory material. Then I tried, I really tried, to convince myself to read all the details, knowing that infrared cameras were not allowed. I simply could not get myself to read it all knowing that.

~~ Paul

Paul,

Do you have an opinion of the criticisms of the Scole Experiment by Dr. Alan Gauld that are said to be included in the report?

Mike

 

[Mike D.]

He [Prof. Roy] sat with the Scole group on a few occasions, I think. I'll go and check the proceedings to see exactly what what he did, if no-one else gets there first.

James,

Thanks! I'd also be interested in your views of Gauld's criticisms.

Mike

 

[Mike D.]

I got through the introductory material. Then I tried, I really tried, to convince myself to read all the details, knowing that infrared cameras were not allowed. I simply could not get myself to read it all knowing that.

~~ Paul

Paul,

How unrigorous of you! But I am at this point even more unrigorous than you are since I have yet to obtain a copy of the report!

Mike

 

[SteveGrenard]

Gauld had 5 bones of contention to level against Scole:

1. The vulnerability of the Alan Box in which some of the films were housed

2. Some of the images on the film reveal a particular method of manufacture

3. Some of the images are taken from recognizable sources

4. A major part of the supposed communications fdrom deceased SPR members contain material reasoably accessible in the public domain

5. The inadequate controls operated by the investigators.

Prof. Fontana responded to these points. The discussion appears on pp 442-445 of the original report.

 

[dingler44]

The only night vision devices I have seen do emit a greenish tinge and on color video produce a greenish cast. The technology which you refer to uses extremely tiny pinpoints of i.r. light and I agree this technology can also be used.

Two common ways of seeing in the dark are light amplification and infra-red.

Light amplification is a completely passive process. The camera is very sensitive to light and does what it can to salvage an image... often these types of cameras record/display in green.

Infra red cameras are not passive as they emit infra red light and record the image by detecing the reflected infra red. However as many have already stated, infra red is invisible to the human eye.

Neither type of night-vision should interfere with in the dark seance experiments... that is unless the mediums fail and need an excuse.

 

[Mike D.]

Gauld had 5 bones of contention to level against Scole:

1. The vulnerability of the Alan Box in which some of the films were housed

2. Some of the images on the film reveal a particular method of manufacture

3. Some of the images are taken from recognizable sources

4. A major part of the supposed communications fdrom deceased SPR members contain material reasoably accessible in the public domain

5. The inadequate controls operated by the investigators.

Prof. Fontana responded to these points. The discussion appears on pp 442-445 of the original report.

Thanks, Steve!

Mike

 

[Mike D.]

Infra red cameras are not passive as they emit infra red light and record the image by detecing the reflected infra red. However as many have already stated, infra red is invisible to the human eye.

Does anyone know if physical mediums have claimed that *all* light is potentially harmful to them in the seance room, or just visible light?

I know that there have been claims that certain physical mediums have produced phenomena in full visible light and did not require darkness, but it does seem that more have claimed that darkness is a necessity. I also think I've read claims that a few physical mediums have permitted infrared photography.

During the Scole seances, the spirits are reported to have produced "spirit lights." I wonder why these lights were apparently not held to be harmful.

 

[Yahzi]

Steve Grenard
CFLarsen busted you on this one. You were caught flat-footed in a lie - or at the very least, a contradiction.

If it was an honest mistake, you could admit it. But you can't. Which leads us to infer that it was not an honest mistake, but par for the course.

You say what you want when you want, and expect people to forget what you said last time. Text really isn't the medium for people that want the privilege of revising what they said after they said it (without admitting that they are changing anything).

 

[SteveGrenard]

d44 states: Infra red cameras are not passive as they emit infra red light and record the image by detecing the reflected infra red. However as many have already stated, infra red is invisible to the human eye.

Sorry, but the video cameras I record people in the dark while sleeping do not emit infra red. They are cheap back and white sony surveillance video cams. We place a near infra-red ceramic emitter (some kind of ceramic over a power source--looks like a flat piece of brown leather-also relatively inexpensive) in the ceiling. The camera sees and records the subjects like they were in full daylight but there is nothing visible in the room. We use black and white cameras and record in b*w because in color the image appears blotto.

I have been doing this since 1996 and now record 2000 people during sleep tests every year. So I don't give a damn what Larsen says, neither he nor dignler44 are apparently aware of all the technology available to accomplish this.

 

[dingler44]

I have been doing this since 1996 and now record 2000 people during sleep tests every year. So I don't give a damn what Larsen says, neither he nor dignler44 are apparently aware of all the technology available to accomplish this.

*YAWN* Steve, I don't give a damn whether or not English is your first language.

Reread my post. It is an objective description of two technologies that exist and could be used. You seem to think I'm saying they are the ONLY two technologies. If this is the case, I question your reading skills.

Regarding your technical skills - apparently you don't realize that your method is almost identical to the infra-red method I described. The only difference is that your infra-red source is not coming from the camera but from an external and separate device.

 

[SteveGrenard]

dingle44 check your continuity skills.....I was responding to Yatzi, not you. You may think it is okay for others to "yell" at me and I just sit around and take it and then you chime in and get all huffy about it ....but listen buddy, its not going to happen. I didnt say anything about you save for the fact you may not be aware of other technologies. I am fascinated by the response I get when trying to be polite. So why dont you just cool it?

 

[teddygrahams]

Two common ways of seeing in the dark are light amplification and infra-red.

Light amplification is a completely passive process. The camera is very sensitive to light and does what it can to salvage an image... often these types of cameras record/display in green.

Infra red cameras are not passive as they emit infra red light and record the image by detecing the reflected infra red. However as many have already stated, infra red is invisible to the human eye.

Neither type of night-vision should interfere with in the dark seance experiments... that is unless the mediums fail and need an excuse.

Both light amplification and the IR "nightshot" require light to be emitted. The IR requires IR (non-visible) light, and a lot of it. The camera is a regular color CCD or BW camera with the IR blocking filter removed (or swung out of the way). CCDs are sensitive to IR, it takes an effort for them to be not sensitive ti it. The sony camera I have allows the internal IR LEDs to be disabled, allowing an external lamp or LEDs for illumination. If these were spread out and run at lower power, they would not be visible to the human eye as the tiny red glowing square. It's also possible to use IR LEDs with a lower wavelength that is not at all visible.

The "night vision" is not "passive" either as it does require a light source. The light is amplified using an "image intensifier" which then displays the intensified image on a phosphor screen. The screen can be recorded by a camera.

Another technology is used in FLIR. This uses an infrared sensitive element that does not require a light source. There are 2 kinds of sensors... cooled and uncooled. The sensor output is video, no extra camera is required. I've seen the uncooled CCD element priced at 5000$ US a year ago.

 

[SteveGrenard]

dingler44:

Regarding your technical skills - apparently you don't realize that your method is almost identical to the infra-red method I described. The only difference is that your infra-red source is not coming from the camera but from an external and separate device.

Not quite. The system we use is totally devoid of any visible light whatsoever including the two tiny light sources you describe as being incorporated in your IR camera. The room is in total darkness: a/v blinds covered by black out curtains in rooms w/windows, and doors that close to tight tolerance preventing no light whatsoever from entering. I agree our IR emitter is
separate from the camera ... I said that.

 

[dingler44]

dingle44 check your continuity skills.....I was responding to Yatzi, not you. You may think it is okay for others to "yell" at me and I just sit around and take it and then you chime in and get all huffy about it ....but listen buddy, its not going to happen. I didnt say anything about you save for the fact you may not be aware of other technologies. I am fascinated by the response I get when trying to be polite. So why dont you just cool it?

Well Steve that might have been clear had you included a quote other than my own. Sorry for yelling at you. I advise you to quote more carefully and thoroughly in the future.

 

[dingler44]

dingler44:

Not quite. The system we use is totally devoid of any visible light whatsoever including the two tiny light sources you describe as being incorporated in your IR camera. The room is in total darkness: a/v blinds covered by black out curtains in rooms w/windows, and doors that close to tight tolerance preventing no light whatsoever from entering. I agree our IR emitter is
separate from the camera ... I said that.

Yes, this is still the same as the IR method I described.

 

[dingler44]

Both light amplification and the IR "nightshot" require light to be emitted. The IR requires IR (non-visible) light, and a lot of it. The camera is a regular color CCD or BW camera with the IR blocking filter removed (or swung out of the way). CCDs are sensitive to IR, it takes an effort for them to be not sensitive ti it.

No, light amplification does not require light to be emitted by the recording to device. The very definition of light amplification is the sensing and intensifying of ambient light. If you want to combine a light amplification system with an IR system or a system that emits and senses a different wavelength of light, that's fine too.

 

[teddygrahams]

No, light amplification does not require light to be emitted by the recording to device. The very definition of light amplification is the sensing and intensifying of ambient light. If you want to combine a light amplification system with an IR system or a system that emits and senses a different wavelength of light, that's fine too.

Light amplification requires light... doesn't matter what the source is. It will not work in a sealed room without light sources. There would be no "ambient" light present.

However, FLIR-type sensors WILL work in a sealed room without any light/IR sources. It is sensitive to the heat emitted from humans.