the scole experiment

7/26/2019 The Scole Experiment

1/22

The Scole Experiment

Said to be the best evidence yet for the afterlife -- but how good is that evidence?

Filed under Paranormal

Skeptoid #179

November 10, 2009

Podcast transcript | Listen| Subscribe

urn out t!e li"!ts and link our !ands, $or toda %e&re "oin" to !old a seance and contact t!e dead, and

!ave t!em per$orm parlor tricks $or us in t!e dark' (e&re "oin" to look at t!e Scole )*periment, a lar"e, %ell+

or"anied series o$ seances conducted b members o$ t!e Societ $or Psc!ical -esearc! in t!e late 1990&s in

Scole, a small villa"e in )n"land' -eported p!enomena included "!ostl li"!ts $littin" about t!e room, ima"es

appearin" on $ilm inside secure containers, reports o$ touc!es $rom unseen !ands, levitation o$ t!e table, and

disembodied voices' .ue to t!e lar"e number o$ investi"ators and sitters involved, t!e number and

consistenc o$ paranormal episodes observed durin" t!e seances, and t!e lack o$ an $indin" o$ $raud, man

believers o$ten point to t!e Scole )*periment as t!e best scienti$ic evidence t!at spirits do survive in t!e

a$terli$e, and can and do come back and interact %it! t!e livin", demonstratin" an impressive arra o$

con/urin" po%ers'

!ere %ere a total o$ si* mediums and $i$teen investi"ators $rom t!e SP-' !e Societ $or Psc!ical -esearc!,

or SP-, is based in London and is more t!an a centur old' ts members!ip consists o$ ent!usiasts o$ t!e

paranormal' !e aut!oritative source $or %!at !appened in t!e Scole )*periment is a report several !undred

pa"es lon", called !e Scole -eport, ori"inall publis!ed in t!e /ournal Proceedings of the Society for

Psychical Research,and %ritten b t!ree o$ t!e lead investi"ators %!o %ere present at t!e sittin"s, all

current or $ormer senior o$$icers o$ t!e SP- plant scientist onta"ue 3een, electrical en"ineer 4rt!ur )llison,

and psc!olo"ist .avid Fontana' !ave a cop !ere on m desk' t "oes t!rou"! t!e !istor o$ !o% t!e

e*periments came to"et!er, details eac! o$ t!e man seances, and presents analsis and criticism $rom a

number o$ t!e SP- investi"ators %!o observed'

5n$ortunatel, t!e Scole )*periment %as tainted b pro$ound investi"ative $ailin"s' n s!ort, t!e investi"ators

imposed little or no controls or restrictions upon t!e mediums, and at t!e same time, a"reed to all o$ t!e

restrictions imposed b t!e mediums' !e mediums %ere in control o$ t!e seances, not t!e investi"ators'

(!at t!e Scole -eport aut!ors describe as a scienti$ic investi"ation o$ t!e p!enomena, %as in $act 6b an

reasonable interpretation o$ t!e scienti$ic met!od !ampered b a set o$ rules %!ic! e*plicitlpreventedan

scienti$ic investi"ation o$ t!e p!enomena'

!e primar control o$$ered b t!e mediums %as t!eir use o$ luminous %ristbands, to s!o% t!e sitters t!at

t!eir !ands %ere not movin" about durin" t!e seances' consulted %it! ark )d%ard, a $riend in Los 4n"eles

%!o "ives mentalism and seance per$ormances pro$essionall' 8e kno%s all t!e tricks, and luminous

%ristbands are, apparentl, one o$ t!e tricks' !ere are an number o$ %as t!at a medium can "et into andout o$ luminous %ristbands durin" a seance' !e %ristbands used at Scole %ere made and provided b t!e

mediums t!emselves, and %ere never sub/ected to testin", %!ic! is a "ross dereliction o$ control b t!e

investi"ators' (it!out !avin" been at t!e Scole )*periment in person, ark couldn&t speculate on %!at t!ose

mediums ma !ave done or !o% t!e ma !ave done it' Su$$ice it to sa t!at pro$essional seance per$ormers

are not in t!e least bit impressed b t!is so+called control' ricks like t!is !ave been part o$ t!e "ame $or

more t!an a centur' Since !and !oldin" %as not emploed in t!e Scole seances, t!e mediums e$$ectivel !ad

ever opportunit to be completel !ands $ree and do %!atever t!e %anted to do'
http://skeptoid.com/episode_guide.php?cat=7http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4179.mp3http://skeptoid.com/subscribe.phphttp://www.themarkedward.com/http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4179.mp3http://skeptoid.com/subscribe.phphttp://www.themarkedward.com/http://skeptoid.com/episode_guide.php?cat=7


2/22

elievers in t!e Scole )*periment are likel to point to speci$ics in t!e Scole -eport and sa somet!in" like

:ut accordin" to t!e detailed notes, t!e medium never moved !is !ands,: or somet!in" like t!at' ut %e

!ave to remember t!at, assumin" t!e Scole mediums %ere usin" tricker, t!e aut!ors o$ t!e Scole -eport

%ere merel %itnesses %!o %ere taken in b t!e tricks' ;$ course t!eir report is likel to, and does, state

t!at t!e could not !ave been $ooled' !is is a per$ect e*ample o$ con$irmation bias' !ese Societ $or

Psc!ical -esearc! $ello%s $irml believed t!e %ere %itnessin" "enuine spirit p!enomena, and desired a

positive outcome' !e $ollo%ed t!e mediums& instructions to t!e and acted as an audience onl and not as

investi"ators' !e Scole -eport details t!e aut!ors&perceptionso$ %!at !appened in t!e room< no reader !ascause to believe it describes %!at actually!appened in t!e room'

-epeatedl, t!rou"!out t!e Scole -eport, t!e aut!ors state t!at no evidence o$ $raud or deception %as $ound'

For e*ample

There is a further complaint: that we made little mention of the views of people like est or Professor

Robert !orris, "who e#pressed reservations on the basis of their e#periences$" That is partly because no such

reservations were e#pressed to us at the time$$$ e were looking for evidence of deception$$$ e looked in

vain$

$ "o to Penn = eller&s ma"ic s!o% to look $or evidence o$ deception, but impose t!e rule t!at !ave to

sta in m seat and %atc! t!e s!o% as presented, and &m not allo%ed to "o onsta"e and e*amine t!e

per$ormers or t!e e>uipment, or %atc! $rom be!ind, or observe t!e preparations, "uarantee ou t!at also

%ill $ind no evidence o$ deception' Placin" illuminated %rist cu$$s on t!e seance mediums, and allo%in" no

$urt!er controls, is per$ectl analo"ous to !avin" eller s!o% ou !is arms :8e, look, not!in" up m sleeves,:

t!en allo%in" !im total control over evert!in" t!at $ollo%s' t can reasonabl be ar"ued t!at t!e Scole

)*periment investi"ators 6%!et!er deliberatel or t!rou"! near+total investi"ative incompetence created

t!e conditions o$ a sta"e s!o% desi"ned to $ool an audience'

!e p!enomenon most commonl reported in t!e Scole )*periments %ere small points o$ li"!t t!at $litted

about t!e room, o$ten strikin" crstals and illuminatin" t!em $rom %it!in, or causin" disconnected li"!t bulbs

or a small "lass dome to li"!t up' Since t!e mediums banned video "ear, t!ere&s no %a %e can reall

evaluate t!ese claims, ot!er t!an b readin" t!e Scole -eport, %!ic! onl tells us t!e perceptions

e*perienced b a $e% true believers %!o %ere present' ark )d%ard said t!ese tricks !ave been commonl

per$ormed in seances %it! laser pointers since t!e 1970&s %!en t!e $irst became available Strike a li"!t bulb

or rock crstal %it! a laser pointer and it li"!ts ri"!t up' 4n advanta"e o$ laser pointers is t!at t!e tip can be

easil cloaked, obscurin" t!e ori$ice $rom anone %!ose eeball is not t!e tar"et o$ t!e beam' (e !ave no

evidence t!at t!e Scole mediums used suc! tec!ni>ues, but t!eir rules also prevented us $rom establis!in"

t!at t!e didn&t'

!e ne*t most impressive $eat %as t!e spontaneous appearance o$ ima"es on $ilm' .urin" t!e seance,

$actor+sealed $ilm cartrid"es %ere placed inside a padlocked bo*' !e spirits %ere t!en asked to imprint

ima"es upon t!e $ilm' !e locked bo* %as t!en taken and t!e $ilm developed in t!e strict constant

supervision o$ t!e investi"ators' !is $eat %as repeated man times' ;ne o$ t!e investi"ators, 4lan ?auld,

%rote criticall o$ !o% !e discovered t!is locked bo* could be >uickl and easil opened in t!e dark, %!ic!

allo%ed $or eas substitution o$ $ilm rolls' !is bo* %as provided b t!e mediums' (!enever an ot!er sealed

container %as used, no ima"es ever appeared on t!e $ilm' @et even %!ile ackno%led"in" t!ese $acts, t!e

aut!ors o$ t!e Scole -eport still maintain t!at t!e $ilm ima"es are most likel evidence o$ t!e supernatural'

Per!aps t!e bi""est red $la" in t!e Scole )*periment is t!e venue in %!ic! t!e sittin"s took place a room in

t!e basement o$ t!e !ouse in Scole %!ere t%o o$ t!e mediums lived, -obin and Sandra Fo' -at!er t!an

controllin" t!e environment, t!e investi"ators ceded total control over t!e room and conditions to t!e

mediums' !e seances %ere !eld about once a mont!, %!ic! "ave t!e Fos ample time to make an desired


3/22

alterations to t!e room' !ere&s no evidence t!at t!e did so, but "rantin" t!em unrestricted opportunit

prett muc! torpedoed an !ope $or credibilit' !e Scole -eport states t!at t!e room %as available $or

e*amination be$ore and a$ter ever seance, but t!ere&s no reason to believe t!at an trul t!orou"!

e*amination %as ever per$ormed< and in an event it&s a poor substitute $or %!at t!e investi"ators s!ould

!ave done, %!ic! %as to provide t!eir o%n room over %!ic! t!e mediums !ad no control at all' 64 $e%

seances %ere !eld at ot!er locations, but t!e Scole -eport describes t!e results $rom t!ose as :variable:'

!e ne*t bi""est red $la" %as t!e mediums& insistence t!at t!e seances be !eld in complete darkness andt!eir re$usal to allo% an ni"!t+mode video cameras or li"!t en!ancement e>uipment' !e mediums&

e*planation %as t!at t!e $elt suc! e>uipment %ould distract t!e investi"atorsA !at&s like tellin" a pilot t!at

!avin" instruments mi"!t distract !im $rom $lin"' 4stoundin"l t!e investi"ators a"reed to t!is, t!ou"! t!e

did e*press disma, as i$ t!eir desire and "ood intentions alone validate t!eir conclusions' 4udio recordin"s

onl %ere permitted, but since t!e claimed p!enomena %ere primaril visual, t!e audio tapes are o$

essentiall no value'

4 t!ird red $la" is t!e $act t!at t!ere&s been no $ollo%up' $ amain" p!enomena trul did !appen at t!e Scole

)*periment, it %ould !ave c!an"ed t!e %orld' ainstream psc!olo"ists and ot!er academics %ould !ave

"otten in on it, it %ould !ave made %orld%ide !eadlines, and it %ould be repeated in labs ever%!ere and

become mainstream science' !e did !ave t!e opportunit skeptical psc!olo"ist and aut!or -ic!ard

(isemansat in on one seance, takin" c!ar"e o$ some p!oto"rap!ic $ilm, %!ic! $ailed to be imprinted %!ile in!is control' ut rat!er t!an comin" a%a impressed and spreadin" t!e %ord, !e summed it up to me in si*

%ords :t %as a load o$ rubbis!A:

!is same principle e*plains %! %e don&t see articles $rom t!e Proceedings of the SPR,like t!e Scole -eport,

republis!ed in scienti$ic /ournals' 4 scienti$ic investi"ation o$ a stran"e p!enomenon assumes t!e null

!pot!esis unless t!e p!enomenon can be proven to e*ist' ut t!e aut!ors o$ t!e Scole -eport, %it! complete

credulit, did t!e e*act opposite !eir stated position is t!at t!e lack o$ disproo$ means t!eir seances %ere

real supernatural events' ut a primar $eature o$ "ood researc! is t!e elimination o$ ot!er possible

e*planations, at %!ic! t!e Scole investi"ators made no competent e$$ort' an o$ t!e investi"ators e*pressed

t!at t!e %ere not ver convinced b %!at t!e %itnessed, and it is to t!e credit o$ t!e Scole -eport aut!ors

t!at t!e $airl reported t!is' ut t!is raises t!e >uestion (! t!en %rite suc! a len"t! and credulous

report, makin" suc! obvious conclusions t!at t!ese p!enomena %ere realB !e lesson to take a%a $rom t!e

Scole )*periment is a simple one' 4lt!ou"! %e all !ave preconceived notions, %e !ave to put t!em aside and

$ollo% t!e evidence %!en %e investi"ate'

Follo% me on %itter@BrianDunning'

References & Further Reading

3een, ', )llison, 4', Fontana, .' :!e Scole -eport': Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research$1

Nov' 1999, Colume DE, Part 220'

ellenber"!, ?''%dvising on Research !ethods: % consultant&s companion$-osmalen o!annes van 3essel,200E' 1GH+1E0'

!e Sebert Iommission' Preliminary Report of the Seybert 'ommission for (nvestigating !odern

Spiritualism$P!iladelp!ia '' Lippincott Iompan, 1EE7'

ro alor' :8o% to 8ave a Seance ricks o$ Fraudulent ediums': The )aunted !useum$.ark 8aven

)ntertainment, 1 an' 200H' (eb' D Nov' 2009' J!ttpKK%%%'prairie"!osts'comKseance2'!tml
http://www.richardwiseman.com/http://www.richardwiseman.com/http://twitter.com/briandunninghttp://twitter.com/briandunninghttp://www.richardwiseman.com/http://www.richardwiseman.com/http://twitter.com/briandunning


4/22

(iseman, -', ?reenin", )', Smit!, ' :elie$ in t!e paranormal and su""estion in t!e seance room': *ritish

+ournal of Psychology$1 4u"' 200H, Colume 9G, ssue H 2EDM297'

(iseman, -', orris, -' uidelines for testing psychic claimants$8at$ield, 53 5niversit o$ 8ert$ords!ire

Press, 199D'

Some months before his untimely death in 2004, Monty Keen, who led the Scole investigation and who was the senior

author of the subsequent Scole Report, considered that as it was nearly four years since the publication of the Report thetime had come to bring those interested up to date by writing a paper detailing any fresh criticisms or supporting evidencerelative to the Report that had come to light during these years ! welcomed the idea and Monty wrote the paper, adding "with my agreement " my name to his !n the event referees proved dissatisfied with certain aspects of the paper, and Montyand ! agreed to re"write it #is death changed matters, but ! $now he would nevertheless wish me to complete the pro%ect !have now done so, ta$ing account of all the points raised by the referees &although honesty compels me to say that neitherMonty nor ! were happy with them' (a$ing these points on board has meant a ma%or re"drafting of much of the paper, and !have had to as$ myself whether or not Monty would give his approval to the result )n balance ! feel confident that hewould *aturally, in his direct and forceful way, he would want some of the language to be more trenchant, and he would

probably disagree with my omission from the paper of things with which the referees disagreed instead of including them inmy rewording +oubtless he would be correct in this, but at the same time ! thin$ he would be the first to ac$nowledge that !have $ept to the spirit of what he wanted to say

David Fontana

IntroductionWhen accounts of investigations into psychic phenomena have been in the public domain for some time it is often incumbentupon the investigators concerned to publish a follow-up paper discussing the observations made by critics in the interveningtime and any fresh evidence that may have come to light. The Scole Report (een! "llison and Fontana# was published in$%%%! and in the light of the interest it aroused at the time we as authors consider the time for such a follow-up has arrived.&nfortunately! due to the decision by the Scole 'roup to discontinue their activities! it has been impossible for us to havefurther sittings with them! so we must confine ourselves in this paper to fresh criticisms of the Report and to any newevidence arising from the details it contains.

Fresh criticismsn the event! fresh criticisms have been conspicuous by their absence. This has surprised us. Whatever view readers mayhave ta)en over the essential issue of authenticity of the phenomena reported by us in The Scole Report! there can be littledoubt that it mar)ed an important milestone in modern psychical research in the sense that it detailed an e*tensive range ofanomalous phenomena and focused renewed attention upon an area of investigation - that of physical mediumship - whichhas featured e*tensively in the early history of this Society! but which has been largely neglected for well over half a century.n our view the Report presented readers with a series of challenges that tested the limits of normal e*planation! and weoffered to provide every assistance to anyone (particularly professional magicians or parapsychologists with e*pertise inillusion# wishing to attempt replication of the phenomena by normal means and under the precise conditions obtaining duringour investigation. We had no ta)ers (or even a single show of interest# in this offer! and five years later changes incircumstances+ mean that the opportunity to act upon it has been lost.

Magicians' verdictThe result is that the magicians+ verdict on the Scole phenomena must rest with the three magicians who have alreadycommented upon them. The first of these is ,ames Webster! who has the advantage of actually having been present at threesittings with the Scole 'roup. t is interesting that although magicians were welcome to attend sittings at Scole only ,amesWebster availed himself of the opportunity. Fortunately he is uniuely well-ualified to act as an observer of the phenomenaand deliver this verdict. n ssociate and Silver /edal 0older of the nner /agic 1ircle (the premier echelon for magicians inthe ! and a man with over 23 years of professional e*perience as a stage magician and as a psychical researcher! he is

fully versed both in illusion and in the various tric)s used by fraudulent mediums in the past. 4n the strength of hise*perience and of his observations at Scole he is uneuivocal that the phenomena witnessed there by him could not beduplicated by professional magicians! even had they prior access to the room in which the sittings were held and were ableto import into it the tools of their trade. ,ames Webster+s testimony to this effect was published in the Scole Report! butsubseuent to the Report he was one of the platform spea)ers at the S5R Study Day on the Scole investigation and wasable to confirm his verdict and his reasons for it in person.

,ames Webster was present at Scole! but what of magicians who have had to go solely on their reading of the Report6Those who were present at the Study Day on Scole will remember that Dr (now 5rofessor# Richard Wiseman! who is ane*perienced magician as well as a rigorous and well-informed critic of psychical research! went on record at the time withthe 7udgement that the Report is 8very impressive+! and offered no suggestions as to how the phenomena could be replicated
http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/ref_01.htmhttp://www.thescoleexperiment.com/ref_01.htm


5/22

by normal means (which must not of course be ta)en to imply that he necessarily accepted their paranormality#. moree*tensive verdict! and the third of those delivered on the Scole Report by magicians! is by 5rofessor rthur 0astings of thenstitute of Transpersonal 5sychology in 1alifornia! &S. n addition to being a leading psychologist with a long-standinginterest in psychical research! 5rofessor 0astings is a highly accomplished magician who has wor)ed professionally in thatcapacity and continues to give tal)s and demonstrations on the sub7ect. n his written verdict submitted to us he insists thatthe phenomena at Scole could not be produced by sleight of hand or tric)ery. n his own words9 :The behaviours describedin the Report are not ones which can be produced by magicians under the close conditions of the Scole investigation! andsome can+t be produced under any conditions;.

These then are the three magicians who have ta)en the trouble to be present at Scole or to study the Report and tocomment upon it to us. 'iven that in addition no magician too) up our invitation to replicate the phenomena under theconditions operating at Scole we are left with the conclusion that the phenomena witnessed there by us cannot! in the light ofpresent )nowledge! be dismissed as tric)ery! no matter how clever.

The bundle of sticks principlen addition it seems that the sum total of reasonable theoretical criticisms of the Scole phenomena (and it is important toremember that these criticisms were in fact theoretical - none of those who attended sessions at Scole reported anyevidence of tric)ery of any )ind# remain those put forward at the time of our investigation by three senior members of theSociety. These were-published in the issue of the 5roceedings devoted to the Scole Report (een! "llison < Fontana! $%%%#!and were answered by us in the same issue. There is no need to refer bac) to them as nothing further has been added tothe arguments concerned to date. 0owever! it is worth saying that the correspondence we have received in the years sincethe publication of the Report has demonstrated virtually unanimous support for our conclusion that the phenomena weregenuine! and represent an important landmar) in the history of psychical research. =o one has challenged what is

sometimes referred to as the 8bundle of stic)s principle+ which one of us (/# described at the Scole Study Day and insistedhas special relevance to investigations such as that at Scole! where the phenomena observed are so varied and sonumerous (for e*ample at Scole we observed more than >3 different versions of the light phenomena#.

When applied to Scole the bundle of stic)s principle has it that even though it may be theoretically possible that one or otherof the effects witnessed by us could have been accomplished by tric)ery (although in the light of our own e*perience and thetestimony of two e*perienced magicians this seems doubtful#! it is inconceivable that the whole wide range of them! many ofwhich too) place repeatedly and many of them simultaneously with each other! could have been effected by this means. tmay be possible to brea) a single stic) (i.e. e*plain away a single effect#! but place a large number of stic)s together in abundle (i.e. produce a wide range of spectacular effects during each of the sittings# and their combined strength becomesunbrea)able. n terms of Scole! the bundle of effects surely resist the strength of even the most far-fetched criticisms.

Further evidence in favour of Scolef no further arguments have been advanced against the Scole phenomena! has anything further emerged in their favour6Three pieces of evidence merit placing on record. The first is the identification by 'uy 5layfair of an anomaly in the recordingof the Rachmaninov ?nd 5iano 1oncerto which we received - on an audio tape supplied and secretly mar)ed by ourselves -apparently by paranormal means at Scole. The incident is fully described on pages ?%@->33 of the Scole Report! and wewere told by the communicators that the composer was 8going to play it himself ... as a pro7ected memory+. We were alsotold that the music was a gift to one of us (/# as a special treat! and /! who was deeply moved by the music! confirmedsubseuently that it had been a mainstay of his inner life during a lonely period of his childhood! a fact he had never divulgedto his fellow investigators or to the Scole 'roup.

The controls operating when the music was received are described in the Report! but the anomaly identified by 'uy 5layfairis unli)ely to be identified by anyone without his familiarity with the piece concerned. t is the erroneous repetition of acadenAa! an error that is unli)ely in the e*treme to occur in any recording of the piece. Ta)en together with the controlsoperating at the time and the fact that the music was announced in advance by the communicators! this rules out the notionthat the music was the result of a stray radio transmission captured by chance by the audio tape recorder.

lthough concerned with mental rather than with physical phenomena! another valuable piece of evidence to emerge

concerns a sBance given by the Scole 'roup - at which one of us (/# was present - in Cos ngeles! &S. n the course ofthe sBance one of the two mediums in the Scole 'roup! Diana! spea)ing to ?3 un)nown sitters in unfamiliar surroundings!gave very precise and easily recognisable details of the recently deceased partner of one of them! 'eorge DalAell! a seniorsocial wor)er in the Cos ngeles Department of /ental 0ealth! along with the circumstances of the partner+s death. Thesedetails were not given in the Scole Report! but the evidence concerned was readily susceptible to confirmation andevaluation! and was fully accepted by DalAell. So impressed was he by it that! at his own e*pense! he attended the S5RStudy Day on Scole (a review of which! by 1hris Roe! is in 5R issue $# where he described the whole incident and his ownconfirmation of its accuracy. Subseuently he further confirmed this in his boo)! /essages! written shortly afterwards andavailable both in the &S and the & (DalAell! $%%%#.

The third piece of evidence concerns one of the supposed apports that appeared at Scole. s it was received by the Scole


6/22

'roup before we began our investigation and we were therefore not present at the time! we made only brief references to itin the Report! but one of us (/# decided to carry out some subseuent research into the incident. The apport concernedwas a pristine copy of the Daily /ail dated pril $st $%22! the front page of which carried the account of medium 0elenDuncan+s $Emonth gaol sentence handed down at the 4ld ailey under the Witchcraft ct. The Scole 'roup received it afterbeing told by one of their communicators that /rs Duncan would bring them something as evidence of her interest in theirwor). natural ob7ection advanced by one of our colleagues to the authenticity of the apport was that the pristine conditionof the newspaper indicated it was no more than a modern facsimile reproduction of the original. ccordingly / too) thepaper to the 5rint ndustries Research ssociation! a world authority on paper and printing! who informed him in due coursethat their detailed e*amination of the typeface demonstrated that it had been printed by letterpress! a long-since obsolete

techniue. Furthermore! their chemical analysis of the paper on which the apport was printed revealed it to be Second WorldWar newsprint! long since unavailable. n his further investigations / ascertained that the apported version differed fromthe copy of the Daily /ail for pril $st $%22 )ept in the ritish Cibrary only in that it was an earlier edition of that day+s printrun.

We therefore have in the apport a tangible piece of evidence (a so-called permanent paranormal ob7ect# for which there is nonormal e*planation. "ven if a devout spiritualist had )ept a copy of the newspaper bac) in $%22 as a memento of the legallymartyred 0elen Duncan! it would hardly have been in pristine condition G3 years later. "ven careful vacuum pac)ing andsecure sealing against the intrusion of light and air! although it might have helped delay the yellowing of the wartimenewsprint! would hardly have maintained it in this condition for such a lengthy period of time. n addition! the notion thatsomeone would have had access to the necessary technology and e*pertise for doing this bac) in $%22! with the SecondWorld War still at its height! surely stretches the bounds of credibility to brea)ing point.

The challenge still facing critics five years after the publication of the Scole Report is by no means peculiar to the Scole

phenomena. t is to advance credible alternative e*planations for so many effects investigated under careful conditions andreported in appropriate detail. We are often told that the inability of critics to e*plain how a convincing piece of evidence canbe e*plained by con7uring in no way detracts from the fact that those reporting it must nevertheless somehow have beendeceived. ut if this argument is ta)en to its e*treme limit it permanently precludes acceptance of anything as paranormalbecause it merely arises from the a priori view that nothing can be paranormal because paranormality contravenes the rigidlaws of normality. Those who subscribe to this view resort all too often to postulations of fraud or of self-deception on the partof investigators or of those they have been investigating - fraud or self-deception on a scale and to a degree that freuentlyaffronts common sense. lternatively! they may insist that the critic has no duty to e*plain by normal means how phenomenacould have occurred or to replicate them under the same conditions on the grounds that it is the responsibility of theparanormal claimant to prove beyond doubt that all conceivable normal e*planations have been e*hausted. nd if and whenthey are e*hausted! the same people can always fall bac) upon the argument that although normal e*planations have so fareluded everyone! they will doubtless turn up one day.

These responses to the challenge of advancing credible alternatives to reports of well-conducted investigations into psychicphenomena are not only unscientific! they actively inhibit the publication of such reports and perhaps even the motivation toconduct the investigations concerned. t is no inducement to spend time and money on an investigation only to be met withresponses of this nature! often accompanied not by a careful e*amination of all the evidence but by reference to the fewsnippets that! ta)en out of conte*t! can be made to appear vulnerable. This is not a plea for an end to criticism ofinvestigations such as that at Scole. Far from it. "*traordinary events reuire e*traordinary scrutiny and e*traordinary

7ustification before they can be accepted as fact. t is simply to suggest that more people might become involved inresearching and reporting these events if they )new that their results would be evaluated on their own merits and not interms of a priori convictions that cannot possibly be true.

What next

n ob7ection of a very different )ind that can be raised against investigations such as that of Scole is what do we do with theevidence they produce even if we find it acceptable6 &nli)e laboratory wor) in parapsychology! where the outcome of eache*periment can in theory at least be used to help design improved protocols and contribute towards the development of anidentifiable sub7ect discipline! each of these investigations tends to be isolated and self contained. "ven replication is oftenimpossible since the conditions associated with success the first time around may no longer apply. Thus although theevidence produced by investigations of this )ind has built up impressively over the years we yet seem no further forward in)nowing how to use it. =o matter how convincing an individual investigation appears to be at the time! it is usually uic)lyforgotten! helped on by the myth of eternal progress. The myth has it that we always do things better than our predecessors!and that earlier evidence should be dismissed on the grounds that the investigators involved were not as astute or as well-euipped as we are. Those who are given to studying our published 5roceedings from the early years onwards should havelittle difficulty in recognising how wrong this is. /any of our predecessors in this Society and in comparable groups abroadwere every bit as meticulous and )nowledgeable as we are! and no evidence should be dismissed simply on the grounds ofage.


7/22

=evertheless! the problem remains! what do we do with this evidence6 1ertainly it is valuable in itself in that it may convincereaders of the reality of the paranormal! but are there other ways in which it can be used6 4ne possible answer is that it canhelp us develop what may loosely be called the philosophy of parapsychology. 4ver the last half-century the philosophy ofthe physical sciences has grown rapidly as a discipline! and enabled us to understand better the meaning of science as wellas its purpose and methodology and the theoretical constructs that drive scientific e*ploration and influence theinterpretations put upon its discoveries. The philosophy of parapsychology has not )ept pace. 5rofessor 0ornell 0art ($%%#and noted philosophers such as 5rofessors road ($%G?# and 0. 0. 5rice (see Dilley! $%%# among others made importantcontributions to the sub7ect in the past! but in recent years there has been little attempt to advance it further by e*ploring therelevance of its findings and of its theoretical constructs to the e*plosion of scientific interest in the nature of consciousness!

the mind-brain relationship! the fundamental nature of matter! models of space-time! and the influence upon physical healthand well-being of inner states such as meditation! visualisation and positiveHnegative thin)ing. n all these areas a philosophyof parapsychology has potentially useful contributions to ma)e.

The most obvious of these contributions may be to theories of mind! in particular theories to do with its nature and with itsrelationship to the material world. t Scole for e*ample we witnessed macro physical effects! and eually if not moreimpressive effects have been reported elsewhere. f these effects are indeed a direct product of mental energy! whether fromthe deceased or from the living! the implications for our understanding of mind could hardly be more profound. t a practicallevel we may never be able to measure this energy! but at a theoretical level its very e*istence surely suggests we mightentertain once more modified theories of dualism or even the vitalism espoused by 5rofessor William /cDougall! one of thefathers of parapsychology who founded Rhine+s laboratory at Du)e &niversity and who was the first psychologist to becomea Fellow of the Royal Society (e.g. /cDougall! $%?E - a classic te*t that still has much to say to us#. nd if we accept that thecommunicators at Scole really were the deceased! not only may this throw light on which aspects of the mind may survivephysical death! it may suggest that even during our lifetime these aspects are not due solely to physical processes. t Scolewe found that the communicators showed humour and other emotions! intelligence of a high order! significant powers ofmemory! and what seemed a genuine and continuing compassion towards others. n addition they manifested consistentsigns of individual identity throughout the two years of our investigation! and never varied in terms of accent! use of words!mannerisms and interests.

Five years after the end of the Scole investigation the need for a philosophy of parapsychology is as evident as ever. 4ne ofus (DF# discussed this on occasions with the late5rofessor ob /orris! and sought to encourage him to turn some of his attention to the sub7ect. =o one was more suited tothe tas) than ob! and he indicated that he had indeed been thin)ing of involving himself in it when his Departmental dutiesat "dinburgh &niversity became less onerous. Sadly! for this among so many other reasons! ob+s death has left anenormous gap in our sub7ect.

Referencesroad! 1. D. ($%G?#. Cectures on psychical research. Condon9 Routledge < egan 5aul.DalAell! '. ". ($%%%#. /essages9 "vidence for life after death. 1harlottesville! I9 0ampton Roads.0art! 0. ($%%#. The enigma of survival. Condon9 Rider. een! /.! "llison! . < Fontana! D. ($%%%#. The Scole report.5rocS5R! E! ??3./cDougall! W. ($%?E#. ody and mind. Condon9 /ethuen. Dilley! F. . ("d.#. ($%%#. 5hilosophical interactions withparapsychology9 The ma7or writings of 0. 0. 5rice on parapsychology and survival. Condon9 /acmillan.

Mental mediumship

From subconscious or e*ternal sources6 by /ontague een

Monty $indly allowed us to publish these etracts from his speech for the S-R Scole +ebate, which too$ place on the ..th+ecember ./// at Kensington ibrary, )*+)*

This is the nub of the issue. Some of us - certainly my self - have tended to regard as a lamentable waste of time and

resources the concentration on fraud or non fraud! even where that issue is dressed up as ;adeuate or inadeuatecontrols6; it comes to the same thing.

for one felt that the accumulation of evidence was such as to overwhelm all reasonable doubt. 4f course it would not havedone had we been invited to attend a demonstration by 5aul Daniels or David 1opperfield. We would have been perfectlywell aware of the years of training! accumulation of s)ills and the abundance of specialist effects reuired. ut we weregoing by invitation into someone+s private home to participate in what si* ordinary people obviously believed they wereprivileged to e*perience! and for which they appeared to have been willing to sacrifice a great deal of their time and energynot to prepare for a public show and rich rewards! but for the enlightenment and satisfaction of themselves and a smallgroup of those who had en7oyed a similar e*perience.


8/22

That being so! ought we not now to get on with the more important and challenging uestion9 from whence do the messagesemanate9 can we eliminate the role of the mediums+ sub-conscious6What follows is based on the assumption that we are dealing with something genuine. The issue is whether that evidencepoints to discarnate intelligence or whether we are entitled to go no further than to argue that it may be attributable only tosubliminal activity on the part of human beings. Do our e*periences with the Scole 'roup ta)e us any further into thesetreacherous waters of speculation and deduction9 deeper than we have previously felt 7ustified in venturing from earlierevidence. nd how! if at all! does it differ from earlier evidence6

lthough this part of our discussion day is billed as +mental mediumship;! it must be apparent from the Report that themental and physical are interloc)ed. Those who may in the future have the privilege and opportunity to read through theverbatim transcripts of some of our sittings will see that! once a rapport had been established between sitters andcommunicators! much of the tal) relates to forth-coming! current or recent demonstrations of physical phenomena! if thatterm can for this purpose be applied eually to the performance of lights and accompanying ethereal forms! and to thebreeAes and touches! table vibrations! trumpet blasts! drum-beats and occasional bangs and scratchings! as well as to themore spectacular and durable physical effects in the form of films.

Ci)ewise much discussion is found to revolve around the production of the films themselves! the conditions relating to theircreation! their contents and meaning! our efforts to interpret them or under-stand the occasional clues etc. So we can+tisolate the oral messages from the physical.t became apparent uite early on! and especially when there were references to Frederic /yers and the founding fathers ofthe Society (S5R#! that the intention of the communicators - and indeed the whole point of the e*ercise - was to providebetter evidence of posthumous communication than had hitherto been obtained. lthough what follows must to some e*tentbe deduction! or inference! it was implicit that the communicators ac)nowledged the failure of what must now be accepted

as the principal effort to provide proof of survival in a calculated! organised form rather than through the sporadic! ad hocmessages from individual mediums to individual sitters impressive though a good deal of that evidence had proved to be.

This may be familiar meat and drin) to old S5R hands! but don+t thin) the Scole e*ercise can be intelligently interpretede*cept by loo)ing at the historic bac)groundJ because this fits in neatly with so much of what we heard and discussed.

y the beginning of this century! those members of the S5R who had not already drifted off towards the spiritualists+ campwere broadly divided between those who found the evidence from! in particular but not e*clusively! /rs Ceonore 5iper to beclear enough proof that the information she was transmitting could have come only from beyond the graveJ and those whothought that proposition not proved! since all the communications were capable of an alternative e*planation! one based onthe )nowledge that the e*tra-sensory capacities of the human psyche might well in some e*ceptional cases! li)e /rs 5iper+s!be such as to enable her subliminal mind to pic) up information not 7ust from similar recesses of the sitter+s mind! but fromthose of the minds of un)nown third parties.

This belief! later to become )nown under the generic title of the Super-"S 5 hypothesis! was what the authors of the cross-correspondences clearly set out to falsify. f! from beyond the grave! they could beam intelligible messages in a form whichwith no imaginative stretch could be attributable to a single human intelligence! that should put paid to the Super-"S5.&nless! that is! one e*tended it further by postulating an ability on the part of the medium to dip into the everlasting pool ofuniversal )nowledge stored up in the )ashic records! and by a careful process of selection pic) out the coloured threadswhich would assemble to form a garment of radiant hue.

t is well )nown that the start of these cross-correspondences occurred at the beginning of this century! shortly after thedeath of Frederic /yers. Fragmentary and essentially meaningless messages or words were transmitted to variousmediums usually via automatic writing. They made sense only when assembled by independent and usually highly intelligentthird parties! as with some comple* verbal 7igsaw puAAles. Cater generations of psychical researchers! dedicated tolaboratory-type! statistically based e*periments of the sort that attracts official funding and sometimes even demonstrates amarginally discernible anomaly! have tended to lose sight of this formidable array of evidence. 4r else they will dismiss it! asseveral eminent S5R leaders have done! as so replete with ambiguity and comple*ity! and demanding of familiarity with

classical literature or poetic allusion! as to try the patience of the most dedicated scholar.

e that as it may! the fad is that these efforts at communication effectively ended over G3 years ago. 'reat volumes ofscripts and learned analyses gather dust today. Those in the celestial realm who appear to have been at such prolongedpains to show that they are still around seem until now to have confined themselves to solilouies through mediumsattended by such authors as Sir 4liver Codge! /aurice arbanelC 'eraldine 1ummins and 5aul eard.

f! as we have reason to suspect! the Scole e*perience was an effort to present fresh evidence which would be simpler!more direct! and more tangible than even the most ingeniously impressive of the cross-correspondences! then it was farfrom being a failure. We need not be too fussed about the apparent meaningless of the lights! touches! noises and so on9


9/22

they could reasonably be regarded as a necessary means to convince sitters to ta)e the communications seriously! and toshow they were not the victims of human deception. nd the 7o)es and puns and laughter6 Well! they might reasonably beregarded as means both to encourage the right attitude of warmth and participation which! for all we )now! may be animportant ingredient in the mi* of energies reuired for the production of phenomenaJ or they may simply indicate that thene*t world is not all fear and gloom as we prepare for 7udgement day and accustom ourselves to the sound of draggingchains and wailing voices.

t is easy to overloo) the fact that these sittings differed fundamentally from the normal sittings with mediums! where the

sitter is there primarily either to contact some deceased person or! no less freuently! for advice and guidance on matterstroubling them. lthough from time to time one or other of us might as) after a particular person! a missing colleague or aformer professional associate! for e*ample! this was not the ob7ect of our visitJ nor did it appear to be the purpose orintention of the communicators. =evertheless it is noteworthy that "mily! the chief communicator! spea)ing through Diana asever! and with an almost entirely new audience gathered in a room several thousand miles from home territory! suddenlyidentified and described a recently dead young man! his driving accident! his blue-coloured car! his occasional pot-smo)ingand his habit of doodling.

nother spirit visitor for whom eight correct identifying features or relationships were provided immediately followed this.0owever! these seemed to be no more than occasional+ and apparently spontaneous! e*amples of odd appearances in"mily+s presence. There did not seem to be anything premeditated or orderly about them.

They came into the same category as many of the seemingly throwaway remar)s by "mily radshaw! who appears to havecarried on into the ne*t world her earthly role as a society hostess as various deceased members of the S5R+s turn of the

century notabilities dropped in for a drin) or a capdoffing. ut it is when we come to e*amples li)e the Ruth films that thesubliminal notion begins to come apart at the seams. t presupposes that both the mediums! because both contributed to theseveral discussions we had about these two films - had carefully studied the introductory e*planation and the reproductionsof Dorothy Wordsworth+s hand-written amendments to the poem Ruth! having fortuitously come across a copy of thecatalogue of a 1hristies miscellaneous boo) sale >3 years earlier! and then forgotten all about it9 forgotten that either of themhad ever seen it. nd yet the conversations we record in 1hapter I show very clearly that! whoever is communicating hada pretty good idea of the origin and history of the amendments which form the sub7ect of the Ruth puAAle. We can ascribe agreat deal to the subliminal mind! but hardly something as memorable as this feat.

ut before probing further into the sort of messages which were conveyed during our sittings with the Scole 'roup! andwhether they were all platitude and generalisation! let us loo) more closely at the alternative posed in the title of this session.Does the evidence fit the hypothesis of subliminal origin! no matter whether it emerges from the mind of the medium or fromthe 'roup! or the 'roup plus the collective investigators! or from the whole lot of them plus humanity in general. s there anecessary e*traneous element$ something which could not possibly have originated from human)ind6

thin) the answer which would give! and believe this represents the considered view of my colleagues too! is that there isnothing which absolutely proves anything! certainly not survival. ut there is a great deal which places what many willconsider almost intolerable strains on any form of purely terrestrial interpretation! which believe to be the only viablealternative to survival.We must also accept that there is respectable evidence that the human mind can pro7ect thought-images onto plates offilms. f admittedly e*ceptional human beings can somehow imprint thought-images on films! could we not push it one stagefurther by suggesting that this is precisely what happened at Scole6

Well we could! but it would have to be an e*ceptionally vigorous push. 5revious thought-images have gone straight on to flatplates9 admittedly one of a stac) of plates in /ita+s case! but still flat. t Scole we have the phenomenon of a thought-imagegetting on to a rolled-up film almost invariably in its plastic container! and usually concealed either in a plastic security bag orin a loc)ed bo* or held in an investigator+s hands. That+s one difference. The second! and more significant one from ourviewpoint! is that the earlier e*amples were all of images of e*isting scenes pro7ected onto a sensitised plate! as determinedby an e*perimenter or chosen by a psychic. t Scole we had a disparate range of ob7ects which it would be difficult indeed to

attribute to the psyche of one of the mediums! or! less still! to the collective thought-wishes of a 'roup.

We had actually invited the spirit Team to produce a film of something we would thin) of there and then. ut they made itclear that their aim was to get their thoughts! not ours! nor those of the 'roup! on to films. They had a point. The uestion iswhether the films! ta)en as a whole! can be regarded as unli)ely at the least! or impossible at the best! to have emergedfrom the human mind.Well! loo) at the pictures and 7udge for yourselves. There can be no definitive conclusion. 4ne can reasonably contend!however! that if these are all from the 'roup+s subconscious! or in the video version from subliminal gropings into the

)ashic records! then we have a fresh and formidable new assemblage of attributes to pile on to our subliminal minds! not


10/22

helped by the absence of any positive evidence. 0ere we have a number of pictures about which the 'roup - and we arenow assuming honesty on their part - share our bewilderment! and sometimes our e*citement.

t was members of the 'roup themselves who eagerly rushed to inform us of how and where they had traced the origin ofone of the hermetic references! the 5erfectio film seen in 5late S in the 5roceedings! and more clearly e*plained in the"*hibition outside. Ci)ewise was roused around midnight after Diana had found the Ruth poem of Wordsworth! which wasthe sub7ect of so much subseuent research and speculation.

f we have reached the stage of accepting that all was not invention and deception! then we have no alternative than toconclude that it is pushing improbability beyond reasonable limits to argue that something as obscure and emotionallycharged as was the Ruth amendment! was li)ely to have originated from the subliminal minds of any or all of the Scole'roup.Then ta)e the Schnittger poem. =o one has yet found who wrote it and where it comes from. t+s regarded as pretty good'erman! and fairly characteristic of the language and style e*tant about a century and a half ago! although the handwriting ismore modem. What e*travagant assumptions must we ma)e to attribute this! too! to the 'roup psycheKThe plain truth is that any theory of subliminal activity! no matter how e*tensive one assumes the field of that activity to be!simply does not suare with the fact that careful research and artistic preparation are reuired for physical effects li)eapports or! more relevantly! film strips. t is a theory based entirely on mental evidence! not physical.

Cet us grant that the phenomenon of psycho)inesis has been established. L note that a paper published in our ,ournal aslong ago as $%2 by our present 5resident considered the case to have already been made out! on statistical grounds!although he and most others have been discussing very marginal movements apparently controlled by the mind operating at

a distance.M ut since there+s also plenty of evidence that uite massive movements can occur! especially and notoriously inpoltergeist cases where heavy pieces of furniture can be moved around! and household articles can be made to disappearand re-appear in different places! then it is possible to argue that the psyche can e*ercise this powerful force. ut onecannot therefore conclude that the force is in no way sponsored or organised by some form of non-human agency.

There is ample evidence to show that it is. What sort of purely psychic influence is it that can not only illuminate thendematerialise and then rematerialise crystals! but also dematerialise rolls of virgin film inside plastic tubs! wor) on them andreturn them to their capped tubs to await processing.

few wee)s ago in this hall! when we were considering the uestion of what constitutes evidence of the paranormalacceptable to the scientific mind! broadly endorsed the dictum of David 0ume! that only if the alternative e*planation wasless plausible than the apparent miracle it purported to e*plain would he accept the miraculous.

f you put the messages and manipulations of discarnate entities in the category of miracles! and then consider the

alternative e*planations have e*plored! you can perhaps see why am somewhat reluctantly and cagily! on the side of themiraculous.

!onvincing the scientific mind

by 5iers "ggett

5eople meet are often surprised to learn that am both a government scientist and a committed Spiritualist. Somehow! thetwo don+t seem to go together! but am by no means uniue. thin) of myself as following in the footsteps of the pioneers!some of them far better scientists than will ever be! such as William 1roo)es and 4liver Codge! to name but two. Thesepeople had reputations at sta)e! which do notJ yet they were not afraid of ma)ing their views )nown! so why should worryabout what people thin) of me6 /y career has reached its pea)! more of a plateau really! so have nothing to lose. lso! am pleased to say! there is a growing number of young scientists who are showing great interest in psychic phenomena andspiritual matters. Scientific people! however! are notoriously sceptical! so what can be done to help convince them of the

truth6

5erhaps the best place to begin is to loo) at what finally convinced me that Spirit really e*ists. dmittedly! was already partway there! since from childhood had been aware of spirit people and occasionally had clairvoyant flashes! but awareness isa feeling! and not tangible proof. What needed was something more definite.

was sitting in bed! reading! one night in $%E@! when was suddenly aware of a man+s presence in the room. This! as havesaid before! was not unusual in itself! e*cept that the feeling was particularly strong. thought no more of it and finished myboo)! turned out the light and went to sleep. Suddenly was awo)en by something! and as lay there! wide-awa)e! thefeeling of a presence was uite intense. The atmosphere was electric and highly charged. lthough the room was uite dar)!


11/22

loo)ed around me! and was startled to see beside me! no more than a foot away! a small cloud of what loo)ed li)e whitesmo)eK

The cloud swirled around as it grew in siAe and intensity! and then! suddenly +loc)ed on+ to a form. t was the face of a man!and was perfectly detailed! with every hair and wrin)le clearly visible. 0e was grinning at me! and remember thin)ing whatlovely even teeth he hadK 0e then leant over! and although couldn+t see his arms! could clearly feel them as he embracedme in a hug. 0is arms were strong and absolutely solidJ without doubt! he was realK as)ed him for his name! and in a softbut audible voice! he told me. 0e spo)e a few more words! and then )issed me on the chee) before drawing bac)! and

gradually he faded away.

=ow can say that in all honesty that Spirit is realJ don+t 7ust believe it! )now itK have since that night had many similarmeetings with my spirit friends! and each occasion is a wonderful e*perience. Sometimes the electric field is so powerfulthat! when reach out to touch the person! am stopped by spar)s dancing on my finger tips and an electric shoc) travellingup my arm. While on other occasions am able to hold them by the hand! and feel the fabric of their clothing. 4nce! the+smo)e+ was bright greenK

We rely on our senses to tell us about the world around us! and although )now they can be fooled! would say that if oursenses of sight! hearing! touch and smell simultaneously indicate that someone is present in the room with us! then it mustbe a fact. We normally accept a person+s presence with less sensory input than this! after all. We don+t have to touchsomeone to prove they really are there. This proof! however! is personal to the recipient! being specifically tailored to theirparticular need! and obviously does not constitute proof to anyone else.

Similarly! the small gifts apported to us either in circle or directly into our homes! are uite meaningless to those not presentat the time! no matter how precious and undoubtedly cherished they are to those who receive them. have been privilegedto receive a number of gifts this way! and my scientist friends are always )een to see them and e*amine them closely! but atthe end of the day! they have only my word as to where they came from. n any case! what e*actly do they prove6 Theyshow that it is possible to dematerialise an ob7ect in one location! and re-materialise it somewhere else! but do they provethe e*istence of Spirit6

ncidentally! we are told that since time does not e*ist to Spirit! this is no barrier and things can be transported from the pastas well as from the present. t is! though! more difficult to bring items from the future. The only way in which apports offer anyevidence of Spirit! is in the significance of the article to the recipient. n fact! when we have received more than one item atthe same time in circle! the nature of each gift has made it plain which belongs to which sitter! thus indicating the wor) of aSpirit mind! which )nows each of us well enough to be able to select a relevant gift.

4ne of the main ways in which a scientist verifies a theory is by testing it repeatedly with a suitable e*periment. When we

put Spirit to the test in this way! we immediately run into difficulty. Firstly! many effects have been observed! but do we reallyhave any idea of why and how these things are brought about6 Secondly! results are not consistent. For e*ample! it is a well)nown feature of physical circles that a fall in temperature occurs! but the siAe and speed of the change depends on variousfactors such as the place! the sitters and their energy levels! and of course! the intention of the spirit wor)ers on thatparticular occasion. lso! temperature changes tend to be much more mar)ed below )nee level! so it is important to site thethermometer correctly! and to use an instrument with a sufficiently rapid response.

t is important! therefore! to have e*perimenters who have at least some e*perience of the wor). "ven then! results are li)elyto be very variable! since no two circles are ever the same. Sitters would soon lose interest if the circles repeatedthemselves every wee)! and Spirit too would not tolerate such a waste of time. These precious moments we are able tospend in the company of our spirit friends are far too valuable to wasteJ after all! it ta)es effort and commitment on bothsides. There is wor) to be done! such as healing! and teaching and so on. 1are must also be ta)en not to influence theresults. was aware of this possibility as a young e*perimentalist! over twenty years ago! when used to as) not to be toldwhat results to e*pect! because )new that if we were loo)ing for a subtle effect! could sometimes influence it 7ust bythin)ing about it. 0ow! then! do go about convincing my sceptical colleagues6 The best proof of all is! of course! the )ind ofpersonal proof! which have had! and am sure that anyone who is genuinely see)ing conclusive proof! will eventually begiven it. /eanwhile! there must be something can do to whet the appetite of the scientific mind.

put this problem to spirit one day! and was immediately shown the inside of a library. The walls were covered withboo)shelves to the ceiling! and in the foreground stood a group of scientists from the past. 4ne or two faces were familiar!but most of them didn+t )now at all. 4ne man stepped forward and e*plained that they understood my desire to help! andthe problems was facing. 0e went on to say that they would impress my mind from time to time! with thoughts aboutvarious e*periments and measurements! which could usefully be made. 0e indicated the boo)s behind him and said ;Coo)!we have all this )nowledge to wor) from! and there is no shortage of ideas over here;. =eedless to say! was tremendouslyencouraged by this! and loo) forward to wor)ing with these fine people. They have already given me some ideas! which am


12/22

eager to try out. thin) it is so important to wor) with Spirit! if we can! as their tas) is difficult enough without having usagainst them.

4ne of the ma7or problems with physical phenomena! at least to the sceptical mind! is that of light! or should say! the lac) ofit. /ost wor) of this sort ta)es place in complete dar)ness! which it must be said! if you don+t have complete confidence inthe integrity of the medium and sitters! can appear highly suspicious to an already critical investigator. "ually! from aspiritualist point of view! it can be argued that if you distrust others in the group! you should not be in circle in the first place!and in any case! phenomena are unli)ely to occur under such conditions. Spirit tells us they are well aware of this problem!

and are as )een to wor) in light as we are. The trouble is! wor)ing in the dar) is much easier for them! and to develop amedium to wor) in light conditions ta)es much longer. t has been done in the past! and am confident that before long! wewill! once more! have physical mediums wor)ing in! perhaps not daylight! but certainly subdued light. 4nce people are surethat they are not being deceived! an enormous degree of scepticism will be removed. +m afraid though! that many scientistswill still have their doubts.

When it comes to scientific investigations! the reader may conclude that am in favour of physical mediumship only. This!however! is not so. believe that mental mediumship has a vital role to play! since it wor)s on a mental level in more waysthan one. n short it ma)es us thin)! and this is an essential part of brea)ing down the resistance of a stubborn mind. Wecannot force people to believe as we do! but if we can prompt them to thin) about our words and the evidence given by highuality clairvoyance! then we have done them an enormous service. f they can 7ust admit to themselves that the e*istenceof Spirit is a possibility! then when they are ready for their own personal proof! they are. less li)ely to turn their bac)s on it orto loo) around for signs of tric)ery. They are much more li)ely to say to themselves +;This really is trueK;

t is my view that a big stumbling bloc) in the minds of sceptical scientists is that of fear. They have been trained to believethat everything is measurable and understandable! to the e*tent that they thin) that anything! which can+t be tied down andunderstood by physics! cannot possibly e*ist. This blin)ered and arrogant way of thin)ing has led to a scientific community!which is afraid of being shown up as not )nowing all the answers. can see nothing wrong in saying ; don+t )now;. fter all!there is so much that we don+t )now! and where is the shame in admitting it6 The most sceptical people+ will not have theircomfortable world turned upside down! and will deny the very best of proof. For them! it would mean having to rewrite thescience boo)s and the laws of physics. Well! why not6 s spirit has said to me! ;Nou will never be able to convinceeveryone! and as a result! you will suffer much scorn and ridicule! and you will need to be strong to withstand it. We will bethere to support you. e than)ful for those you are able to convince;.

Memorable moments and meanings at Scole

by /ontague een

have hesitated to respond to an invitation to note some of my more memorable e*periences during the ?G sittings wasprivileged to have with the Scole 'roup. =ot that there werenOt any. Far from itK ut had long schooled myself to observethe Society for 5sychical ResearchOs tradition of detached observation! devoid of emotion or involvement! )nowing full wellthat sub7ective e*perience is widely regarded as valueless.

=o matter how powerful the impression or profound its influence! spectacular the occurrence or dramatic its impact on theaudience! the sceptical outside world will write it off as the product of a mind over-eager for proof! gullible to wonders! andtoo close to the sub7ect to be trusted as an ob7ective investigator.

Nou may thin) that attitude irrational. So it is. =ot merely that. tOs the bread and butter e*planation of every statutory TIsceptic or sneering reviewer. ut it e*plains! or helps to! why the Scole Report! which eventually emerged from the lengthystudy my colleagues and made of the Scole 'roup! wanted from the outside to have evidence which would convince not

7ust us but the millions who could not themselves e*perienced a sitting! and who would )now little beyond their pre7udicesabout mediumship and still less about physical phenomena. ThatOs why our report concentrated on the essentially prosaic

business of reciting the evidence and then crawling over it to see where anyone might detect a theoretical hole. To conformto the convention of clinical detachment! we may have given the impression of being mere desiccated calculating machines!as =ye evan once observed of a dear colleague.

ut no9 we were perfectly well aware of the fact that in some un)nown way we were ourselves part of the phenomena wewere e*amining9 our PenergiesO! whatever that means! were in some degree and in some un)nown manner helping tofacilitate some of the remar)able things we e*perienced. 0ad we been wholly negative and resolutely sceptical! doubtwhether the rewards would or could have been so spectacular! or important. ut we were not. nd this wasnOt because wewere credulous believers! ready to swallow anything.


13/22

ll three of us were familiar with the vast wealth of literature documenting earlier evidence of mediumistic communication!but we were only too well aware of the remorseless criticisms which had been directed! sometimes by members of our ownillustrious society! at claims of physical phenomena associated with mediumship. 0ence our sometimes over-Aealous effortsto provide a belt-and-braces protocol to forestall those who will argue that any conceivable defect in the security proceduremust necessarily disualify all other acceptable evidence related to the same phenomenon! or the conditions in which it wasproduced.

=one of this means we remained unaffected by essentially unprovable e*periences. n some cases they were profoundly

moving. t one sitting both felt and saw! even to the fingernails! a normal siAe male hand gently grasping mine. There wasa sensation of infinite compassion and love in that uite e*tended moment. t the same time another part of me was wor)ingout whether there was any possibility that a hand so positioned could possibly belong to any of the human beings whoconstituted the 'roup! however great their physical contortions. ut there was notJ and the e*perience was made the morememorable when was told to which distinguished but long since departed entity the hand belonged. ut there was noverifiable evidence of this! nor could there have been.

/ore startling! however! was an event! which too) place in what was! alas! to prove our last sitting with the 'roup. t too)place in ugust $%%@! and it came a few wee)s after our highly successful couple of sittings in the biAa villa of our worthyand generous colleague! collaborator and friend! Dr 0ans Schaer.

There the two simultaneous e*periments had been the production of images on blan) 5olaroid film plates in completedar)ness! and the recording of spirit voices on an eually blan) tape which had placed in a cheap recorder from which themicrophone had been removed9 an e*periment which certainly produced unnatural recordings! but which was ualitatively

poor.

During the chit-chat which accompanied one of these sessions! was as)ed how was getting on with the WordsworthpuAAle. This referred to the lengthy investigation of two strips of film on which were reproduced what were later found to besome amendments in script to one of WordsworthOs early poems. Some mystery attached to the circumstances in whichthese amendments had been written. confidently said that thought had now pretty well wrapped up the investigation (asreaders of 1hapter @ and ppendi* / of our Report will find#. /utual e*changes of than)s followed.

0ence it was gratifying! but not altogether surprising! to be told a few wee)s later that those on the other side had a presentfor me. David Fontana sardonically complained that was always getting presents! and that had been given a half crowncoin! as an apport! in payment of a discarnate debt incurred from the new world by "mily radshaw after an e*periment hadgone awry. ut this was to be less tangible! and more moving. ;0eOll )now why!; said P"dwinO.

5rofessor Fontana was holding the 5anasonic tape recorder containing his carefully mar)ed blan) tape. 5rofessor "llison

had duly chec)ed to ensure that there was no microphone in it. We )new the aim was to try to record something paranormalon this tape! but without reproducing any of our own or the spirit voices.

We were told it was to be musicJ then (in tones of delight# that the composer himself was to transmit it. fter a few minutes!clearly heard through much white noise! as though coming from an infinite distance! were sounds which soon recognisedas one of the first pieces of classical music )new and loved as a boy. t had always had a uniuely strong association withan emotionally stressful period of my youth. The taped record of what was heard at that sitting (as distinct from the tapewhich David was holding# is elouent testimony to my startled reaction and profound emotion.

0ow could PtheyO possibly have )nown6 /arvellous enough to produce what is popularly if erroneously called "lectronicIoice 5henomena ("I5# on tapeJ but to have produced a substantial chun) of RachmaninoffOs second piano concerto!orchestra and all! from the discarnate mind (whence else6# clearly meant that PtheyO must somehow have divined my buriedmemories.

was also considerably sha)en by a minor episode! which does not figure in our report! and which seemed to come! as didso many messages! almost as after-thoughts or throw-away lines! apropos nothing in particular. ddressing 5rofessorFontana! "mily said! to my astonished ears! ;4h! thereOs a blac)bird here who wants to be remembered to you! David.; Towhich the no less phlegmatic response was ;4h yes! well remember that bird.; David subseuently described to me howhe had befriended and fed a blac)bird which had built a nest at the bottom of his garden and had later become almost afamily pet.

Why should have been so astonished6 had come across several accounts of pets! mainly cats! seen in their familiarfireside seats! wee)s after their deathJ and had been more amused than startled by the occasion during one of the 'roupOs


14/22

Cos ngeles sittings when we all e*perienced the characteristic tail-brushing of a non-e*istent cat as it wal)ed round theroom. 5erhaps the western mind is too deeply impregnated with the belief that only humans have souls ...

Coo)ing bac) on those memorable two years find that what chiefly resides in my memory is not so much the brilliance ofthe light phenomena! and the clear intelligence which animated each light form - stri)ing though that was9 it was the clarityand confidence with which conversations too) place with the communicators! and the struggled efforts of the direct voices totransmit their thoughts.

fter all! the physical phenomena. e*traordinary though it was by any standards! and impossible to fit into the limitedframewor) of any materialistic belief system! could be accounted simply a device to demonstrate not only the survival ofconsciousness beyond death! but the ability of those on the other side to influence e*isting and create fresh physical ob7ects./ore than that9 to loo) into our minds and dredge forgotten memories. What has been substantially ignored in our Report! inour desire to concentrate on the evidence and its defeat of the theory of deception! is the content of those discussions.

5erhaps that was the most humbling of my e*periences9 the not entirely comfortable thought that PtheyO )new what was goingon independently of each sitting. 0ence the taps or )noc)s while we chatted away upstairs! indicating that PtheyO were readyand didnOt want to be )ept waiting.

Ci)ewise the confession of amusement at apparently overhearing a conversation we had been having when driving to Scolefor another sitting. h! to recapture that uniue e*perienceK

The Scole "xperiments

by Rosalind 4liver

ntroduction and 4verview

Readers are reminded of the article 1-hysical Mediumship 3n )ld riend in *ew 5lothes1 by -rofessor +avid ontana in!6#( vol ..7 *o2, 3utumn .//7, pp28"90, which includes bac$ground information about Robin oy, the psychicalresearcher under whose aegis the eperimental wor$ discussed in the present article too$ place

n early $%%>! in Scole! =orfol)! members of a small established psychic circle! led by e*perienced psychic researcher RobinFoy and using the highly-developed mediumistic powers of sensitives +lan+ and +Diana+! were given the message thatconditions were now right for an important and e*tended e*perimental pro7ect to begin. This pro7ect! apparently formulatednearly 3 years earlierJ was intended to provide a sophisticated and scientifically literate public with irrefutable proof of

human survival! and a significant part of the plan behind the wor) was to be the holding of special sittings at which respectedassessors - scientists and intellectuals -would be present in order to provide validation of the e*perimental results. Theimpetus! agenda! and planning for this wor) all ostensibly came to! and not from! the group.

From February $%% leading members of the Society for 5sychical Research and their associates began to be involved asobservers. Sittings begun in =orfol) were e*tended to carefully screened (e*perimentally controlled# sites in the=etherlands! 'ermany! SwitAerland! Spain and 1alifornia. 0undreds of meetings too) place! all recorded on audio-tapeunder Robin Foy+s direction. +The S5R was represented at >@ of these meetings! and in =ovember last year their Report! adense and meticulous account and critical assessment of the Scole "*perimental 'roup+s wor)! 7ointly authored by /r./ontague een and 5rofessors rthur "llison and David Fontana! the three principal S5R investigators! was finallypublished. 5receding their Scole Report by one month came The Scole "*periment by 7ournalists 'rant and ,ane Solomon!a boo) which covers the entire five-year period of the e*perimental wor) and was written for a popular audience! (ndeed!readers may have seen e*cerpts serialised in the Daily /ail of ?> and ? 4ctober.# The Solomons+ boo)! for all theshortcomings of its popular style! is! in the broadest sense! a very valuable part of the pro7ect! targeting as it does a far wider

audience than The Scole Report.

=evertheless! the focus behind the wor) was validation of post-mortem survival by the scientific and philosophicalcommunity! and it is for this reason that this article addresses only The Scole Report. rchives of psychical researchsocieties throughout the world! not least the S5R+s and the 15S+s own! are already brimming over with supportive data of ahighly phenomenal )ind - the )ind that could! or should! ma)e publishers+ fortunes - the +1ross 1orrespondences+ (comple*and sophisticated evidential messages received by mediums across the world between $%3$ and c.$%>3# being a notablee*ample. The minds behind the S"'+s wor)! as was made clear to the group and its investigators! did not have it as thefocus of their intentions to add to this body of evidence. n this sense this is somewhat of a disappointment for readers of theScole Report because the phenomena reportedly witnessed over the course of the S5R+s >@ sittings (the sittings to whichthe ReportOs authors confine their remar)s# are e*traordinary in the e*treme.+ First! highly intelligent! witty! informed and


15/22

technically-precise dialogue! the transcripts of which it is impossible to read without feeling one is eavesdropping onconversation among established friends and professional colleagues! firmly twentieth-century in disposition and sufficientlyat ease with themselves and one another to in7ect playful and s)ilful banter into otherwise serious and careful comment andinstruction. Second! a number of established voices with their own highly distinctive characters! accents and mannerisms!for the most part embodied in the group+s two sensitives but at times disembodied in specific locations in mid-air. nd furtherJmoving lights of a fantastic nature (whose movements responded to investigators+ reuests# - globes and pin-pric)s of light!in some cases dense and tangible! capable of penetration of solid ob7ects and observers+ own bodies! and flashes a)in tolightningJ levitationsJ displacement of ob7ectsJ a huge array of apportsJ materialisations of moving and wal)ing forms andparts of bodiesJ taps! raps and sustained touches from materialised fingers and hands! full handsha)es! light )isses!

brushings by materialised clothing and cat and dog forms! trumpet sounds from an instrument which had had its mouthpieceremoved and to which no group member could physically gain access! drum beatings.... (4h! to have been thereK#

ut the design of the S"'+s wor) too) us beyond this. The intention was to establish durable material evidence! of a )indthat could be independently assessed and was not dependent on first-hand reports! however sincere and serious-mindedtheir authors. For one of the salient features of this five-year e*periment is the uantity and uality of recorded personaltestimony generated not only from S5R investigators and their associates but from the many other observers invited to ta)epart in sittings over the years. There is no shortage of this testimony from educated professional individuals who have areputation at sta)e should the wor) not be what it claims to be.

+Study Day+ was held in December $%%% in Condon by the S5R to ma)e room forJ among other things! 7ust this aspect ofthe group+s wor)! and it was very moving! as a member of the invited audience! to hear individuals address the meeting anddeliver their testimonies in sober and forthright language. leave it for you to share my amaAement at hearing 5rofessorFontana recount his e*perience during one of the sittings. &nder typical protocol conditions the sitting too) place in complete

dar)ness! in a pre-searched and secure room! all participants wearing luminous wristbands to provide investigators with acontinuous record of their movements. s)ed to lean forward and put his hand into the 5yre* bowl in the centre of the table!he did so and felt a medium-siAed crystal. +Ta)e your hand out of the bowl and give us a few moments!+ he was told! andthen9 +ll right! now put your hand bac) into the bowl.+ 0e did so! and there was no crystal - simply no crystal. +'ive us amoment again!+ and! after a short pause! +5ut your hand bac) into the bowl+9 he found the crystal again there. This is thetestimony! among numbers of such testimonies covered in the Report! of a serious-minded academic with nothingapparently to gain and arguably a great deal to lose by ma)ing these things up! or allowing himself to be the ob7ect of anelaborate duping! spea)ing at a gathering of eually serious-minded academics and informed parties ready! as he )new! toseiAe any opportunity to discredit his recounted e*perience.

For however delighted present readers may be to hear of or access for themselves these first-hand reports (and theSolomon+s+ boo) happily contains much such material ta)en directly from the Report# and to marvel at 7ust how good thereported phenomena were! it was not! with respect! your approval that those behind the Scole wor) had as their priority.What was first and foremost in their sights was the approval of the orthodo* scientific and philosophical community! an

audience whose position can be summed up as follows9 ut why should we believe in these things6 They don+t fit our modelof what is possible! and no amount of pleading for the honesty! sincerity! probity! intellectual rigour! and dispassion of S"'members! S5R investigators and other observers is of itself going to dispose us to ta)e on board a rival model. We wouldrather say9 ut you may have been mista)enJ orJ if you were not mista)en! you were duped! and we can in each casepropose an e*planation of how you might have been duped using our preferred materialist model. Cittle was to be gained!therefore! on the view of this section of the Study Day+s panel and audience from the presence of invited spea)er /r. ,amesWebster! member of the /agic 1ircle and associate of the nner /agic 1ircle! and full-time professional magician! whoattended three of the Scole sittings as observer and who spo)e to represent the views of professional hoa*ers to stateemphatically that under the prevailing controlled conditions of that group+s e*periments he ;would not be prepared to attemptto duplicate the observed phenomena;. For even if /r. Webster could not produce the lights! voices! materialisations!dematerialisations! nothing! so critics would say! has so far been shown! in rigorous scientific terms! to say that no-one elsecould not.

Cet this critical disposition be articulated with perhaps more elouence and force by a professional in the field! Dr. .S./ann. Following his contribution ta)e up my account again to show to what e*tent his criticisms have been addressed byReport authors! and in fact anticipated by the pro7ect+s authors themselves.

Scole and Scienceby . Scott /ann

Dr. . Scott /ann has taught 5hilosophy at the universities of Susse*! Sydney! and Western Sydney. 0e was lecturer at anddirector of the 1entre for Ciberal and 'eneral Studies at the &niversity of =ew South Wales and currently teaches at the&niversity of Western Sydney. 0is research interests include analogical reasoning in natural science. 0e has been as)ed toprovide a succinct philosopher of science+s response to the Scole e*periments.


16/22

n their boo) The Scole "*periment '. and ,. Solomon refer to ;the LScoleM group+s willingness to invite stringent scientificscrutiny; (The Scole "*periment p.@3#. They ualify this by observing that ;individuals with credible academic! specialist andscientific )nowledge were welcomed to sessions;. ut the presence of scientists in no way implies ;stringent scientificscrutiny;. s the Society for 5sychical Research investigators ac)nowledge in their report (5roceedings of the Society for5sychical Research! Iol.E! 5art ??3#! ;critics have argued that lawyers Lcan beM more suitable LobserversM than scientists!...investigative 7ournalists would be shrewder in detecting duplicity than psychologists; (5S5R! p.>$?#.

Scientific scrutiny implies effective isolation and control of the systems under investigation. nd no matter how critically alert

trained scientific specialists might be! they are not functioning as scientists if they are prevented from e*ercising suchcontrol. t is simply not good enough to maintain that no amount of control would ;satisfy resolute critics; and that ;cleverillusionists can outwit any form of surveillance; (5S5R! p.>3%#. There can never be complete control. ut a good e*perimentis distinguished by aiming for the best that is possible under the circumstances. nd! as the S5R investigators admit!standards fell very far short of what was possible in this case (see e.g. 5S5R! pp.>3E-$>#.

roadly spea)ing! scientific theory testing involves either testing e*planatory causal theories or models throughobservational confirmation or refutation of predictions derived from the theory! or testing statistical hypotheses - of various)inds - through appropriate procedures of sampling! controlled e*perimentation! and data analysis. 0ere we are concernedwith observational testing of an e*planatory theory relating to the e*istence and causal powers of spirits of the dead. Themost crucial point in this sort of observational test is that the predictions in uestion be une*pected or improbable e*cept onthe assumption that the theory in uestion is true. t must not! in other words! be possible to derive similar predictions fromother theories already )nown or believed accurately to describe aspects of the world. 4bservational confirmation of aprediction that is eually derivable from an established theory merely tells us that the new theory has not been refuted! butprovides no solid verification of that theory.

To ta)e an e*ample9 the observed fall of an unsupported ob7ect fails to verify my theory that there are such things as invisiblespirits which suc) all such ob7ects down to earth precisely because we already e*pect such ob7ects to fall - on the basis ofwell-established ideas of gravitational attractive forces. f! on the other hand! our theory predicts that spiritual intervention willprevent such a fall in some specific case - without the intervention of any other recognised physical forces - and thisprediction is confirmed! then! indeed! we have good grounds for ta)ing the new theory very seriously.

s lan 'auld points out! in his 1omments on the Scole Report (5S5R! pp.212-?2#! all of the Scole phenomena can bee*plained by reference to well-established principles of human motivation and action - without any necessary appeal tospirits of the dead. nd! in broad terms! on the basis of previous e*perience of hoa*ing in this area! we can see the sorts of+physical manifestations+ in this case as precisely the sorts of things that might have been e*pected from contemporaryhoa*ers.

The importance of improbable predictions is recognised - at least implicitly - by the S5R investigators when they address theuestions of why the Scole team could not create some ob7ect not possibly available to human hoa*ers! nor give informationthat could not have been )nown to anyone (5S5R! pp.>3@-E#. The fact is that the team did neither of these things. =or do themembers of the team or the S5R investigators provide any independently testable e*planation of why this was the case. 4nthe contrary! there are suggestions that the spirits can somehow manipulate matter at the subatomic level in ways that wouldpresumably allow them to produce truly strange and une*pected artefacts (li)e the 554s Lpermanent paranormal ob7ectsMreferred to by the S5R investigators#.

n the absence of proper verification of the spirit hypothesis! scientific method reuires a critical sifting of all possiblehypotheses capable of e*plaining the observed phenomena. nd the fact that the hypothesis of human hoa*ing is very muchmore plausible than any other we can thin) of in itself constitutes some degree of confirmation of that hypothesis.

1oncluding Remar)sby Rosalind 4liver

Two important points are highlighted by Dr. /ann9 the lac) of r igorous controls and the absence of improbable predictions.s he says! the first wea)ness is properly ac)nowledged by the Scole Report writers. With few e*ceptions! all e*perimentalwor) too) place in complete dar)ness! and investigators had indeed pressed for the introduction of infrared imageintensifying euipment to allow for monitoring of an altogether superior )ind to that provided by the chosen method ofluminous Ielcro-fastened wristbands (too noisy and aw)ward for the hoa*er to remove without detection! it was thought# andfluorescent tags attached to table! tape-recorder buttons! and e*perimental ob7ects. This repeated reuest had! howeverJbeen flatly turned down by those behind the scenes9 infrared light! of however low an intensity! would disturb thee*perimental wor)! they were told. =o e*planation was given! and no movement on the sub7ect was possible! although! asReport authors note (p.>1%#9 ;We have no means of )nowing what limitations the Team was under.; To this e*tent! then! agreat part of the phenomena at Scole and elsewhere are rendered scientifically insignificant. Nou will not thin) so! perhaps!


17/22

because you will want to believe that when people of integrity say they did not cheat orJ as vigilant observers! did notobserve others to cheat! that is the end of the matter. (=ote9 Report! p.>l29 ;n an investigation e*tending over two years inthree countries! and involving varying levels of thoroughness and depth and a doAen senior members of the Society for5sychical Research in their private capacities! no inadvertent! off-guard remar) which might be thought to reveal a deceptionhas been noted by any of the principal investigators or reported to them.;# ut the critical position demands hard!independent proof. So! in short! the monitoring process used let down a great deal of what was produced by the group.

0oweverJ as for improbable predictions!

the scole experiment

Documents