Talk:Eusapia Palladino

Magicians and parapsychology. I am all ears
Hello Martinphi, I have read many books and articles written by parapsychologists and magicians. I can think only of examples back beyond seventy five years ago where parapsychologists sought any advice from magicians, listened to them, and especially thanked them for an explanation that may have slipped by. If something does slip by parapsychologists and the error is pointed out by a magician, usually the magician is bad mouthed and called a DEBUNKER, SKEPTIC, ATHEIST, or worse and the error denied. (Can you say Milbourne Christopher, Martin Gardner, James Randi and Ray Hyman?) If I have missed something, say in the last seventy five years, which I am sure can easily happen; I would be glad if you pointed it out and cited these specific examples. I am always curious, willing to learn, flexible and thankful for new data to examine. Love a historical puzzle! User:Kazuba 18 Oct 2006

I don't think Randi and Hyman are good examples, especially the former. Often the explanations they offer are not something that 'slipped by' the investigators; they are explanations that are either pure speculation or are predicated on ignorance of the facts of the particular case. Has Randi ever succeeded in duplicating Ted Serios so-called "Thoughtographic" phenomena under the conditions that appertained during the original investigations with Serios? As for seeking advice and listening to them, relatively recently (compared to your example of 75 years) during Stephen E. Braude's investigation of the 'gold-leaf lady' in Florida (part of which was depicted on Unsolved Mysteries) a skilled magician (who had designed tricks for Copperfield and others) was present and could not offer an explanation for the phenomena via conjuring.لقمانLuqman 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Naples Sitting
This article ommits all mention of the Naples sitting. This is unacceptable because it provides an exception to the conditions described in this article. During the Naples sitting Palladino was investigated by three skeptics, two of them skilled magicians, under good conditions (including good lighting and tight control over Eusapia herself) and manifested impressive phenomena. The issue is not whether she had cheated at some point. The issue is the genuineness of the phenomena which were exhibited under good conditions of observation and with good controls. If the precautions were such as to eliminate fraud, the conditions such that misobservation is unlikely, and the investigators such that one can be confident in their objectivity, integrity, and accuracy, then any phenomena produced during these sittings ought to be considered as genuine (i.e. they are more likely than not to be veridical). لقمانLuqman 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Eusapia Palladino
You are jumping to your conclusions too quickly. You must read more. Not all magicians are capable of unmasking charalatans. Randi is special, as was Houdini. Palladino's greatest feat was avoiding controls. It is important to remember phenomena and transcendence was, and still is, desired. Especially when dealing with the paranormal. It is not popular to say I misunderstood my own experiences and they were just ordinary humbug. Like critical reason, creativity, talent, imagination, illusions, hallucinations, delusions and selectivity, really exist in the world. Thanks for your interest in magic. User:Kazuba 28 Nov 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kazuba (talk • contribs) 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Tell me something about Palladino's pseudopods. Did anyone in the New York 1910 sittings know about pseudopods? Do you know anything about pseudopods? Randi is indeed special because even amongst debunkers, I can think of no one as low-life as he. If nothing else, he's a liar. To give a couple of examples: Susy Smith (in her The Power of the Mind, at p 117f) says, "For a time, Randi had a radio program in New York City & he asked me for an interview.  On the air, Randi stated to me firmly that the famous psychical researcher Hereward Carrington had eventually repudiated all his findings & researches.  I declared just as emphatically that this was not true or I would have heard about it.  & he said he could substantiate his claim by a letter in the possession of a friend of his signed by Carrington & stating his conviction that there was nothing to the whole psychic field.  When the program was over & we were off the air, I asked Randi to produce the letter from Carrington so that I could see it.  He then said, 'Well, I don't remember who it has it; but I do know I saw it at one time.  I think it was Hereward Carrington who wrote it.  I was somebody.'"  She then goes on to discuss some of his dealings in the Ted Serios affair. About that & Randi, one doesn't need to repeat what Stephen Braude says in The limits of influence, nor in connection with Uri Geller, what Guy Playfair says in The Geller Effect. As for Houdini, one might consult Brian Inglis, "Science & Parascience", & Houdini's fraudulent doings during the course of the investigation of Mina Crandon "Margery". To give one excerpt (from p166) of a very extensive discussion (on about eighteen pages) of Houdini's role, "By the time Houdini arrived to investigate 'Margery' he had by his own admission already compromised himself, as he had told the publisher of Scientific American: 'I will forfeit a thousand dollars if I do not detect her if she resorts to trickery.'  Theoretically this left it open to him to admit that she did NOT resort to trickery.  But in practice he had burned his boats; he had been on a lecture tour of the United States as advance publicity for his book, & on it he had vehemently denounced spiritualism as the cause of distress, madness & suicide.  He could not, at this stage, have backed down; a mutual friend in fact showed Doyle a letter in which Houdini made it clear that his simple intention was to expose the Crandons.  He did not find it easy.  In the first two sessions, although Houdini claimed that he had proved 'Margery' had rung the bell in the bell-box by using her foot & moved the table in front of her by getting her head underneath it, his argument took no account of the possibility that the motive force might be supplied by pseudopods." & so on. Which brings us back to Palladino. If the skeptics especially at the New York sittings of 1910 (of which there were Muensterberg, Jastrow, & a few others) knew nothing about pseudopods, how would they be in the position to distinguish fraudulent from genuine phenomena? FannyOchoa (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)FannyOchoa

The Naples Sittings Repeated and Solved
In 1910 psychic investigator Everard Fielding returned to Naples, without Hereward Carrington and W.W. Baggaly. This time he was accompanied by his friend, W. Marriott, a conjuror of some distinction. His plan was to repeat the famous earlier 1908 Naple sittings with Palladino. Unlike the 1908 sittings which had baffled the investigarors, Fielding and Marriott detected her cheating, just as she had done in the USA. Fielding saw the second visit as totally worthless. He wanted to believe. Others had called attention to the failings of Fielding's 1908 notes. (Having some kind of scientific proof for immortality is still very popular. This is unlikely to change.) Note: In August 1906 Everard Fielding and his brother Basil were boating. The boat capsized and Basil drowned. It was at this period Everard became noted in the affairs of The Society for Psychical Research. Sittings with Eusapia Palladino & Other Studies by Everard Fielding, University Books 1963. Proceedings: Society for Psychical Research, XXV pp 57-69, 1911 User:Kazuba 26 Dec 2006

Also see 1910 S.P.R. primary source: Report on Further Series of Sittings with Eusapia Palladino at Naples by Everard Fielding and W. Marriott, Proceedings Society for Psychical Research, Volume 15, Pages 20-32, Dec 5, 1910 Kazuba (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Eusapia medium.jpg