User talk:Kazuba

About the Sessions
Some of training sessions are single-blind, some double-blind. Some of the single-blind permit in-session feedback (a strictly limited range of monitor responses), and some do not. (Single-blind session were used in a training environment to facilitate the learning process for various reasons that would take too long to go into here -- I spend about an hour in my courses going over all this...and yes, I talk about Clever Hans! ;-) In fact, I spend some time on the topic in my book, as well). For the sessions I posted I haven't taken the time to sort all that out for the uninitiated, since I've posted them mostly for the interest of those who already have some experience with the process (plus for some RV political reasons which I'm not inclined to discuss on a page that is publicly available).  In any case, they do not provide hermitically-sealed evidence for the remote viewing phenomenon (and I am careful not to say they do).  However, they do provide at least some evidence for it, especially those sessions with sketches that correlate closely with the actual target, since there is no way either the limited verbal input allowed, nor possible nonverbal cues could convey sufficient information of the right kind in those cases. Without going back and sorting through them again, I think probably the 17 sessions I've posted so far are of the single-blind, monitor response-allowed variety, since they were relatively early in the training process. When I get to the 1985 and 1986 work, there are more single-blind no-response and double blind among them.

As far as knowing when to end: The viewer can decide s/he has had enough, is not going to get anymore, or is strongly confident the target has been adequately described and take the initiative to end the session. On the other hand, in a single-blind session the monitor may decide the training goal has been reached, that the viewer has hit a wall and won't make any more progress or, if the viewer unexpectedly nails the target, then the session will be ended. In a double-blind session, the monitor will have to rely on the first two criteria mainly (and then the decision is essentially only an educated guess as to when to quit...though one gets pretty good at getting it right after awhile!)

Paul H. Smith (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Dunglas Home
I'm interested that you say Randi (anti-Home) is not well-respected, but you think that Home had an accomplice. I don't know one way or the other, but it is still a strange case. Randi did say that Home had a large moustache under which he hid the harmonica (but the moustache wasn't that big). How could his accomplice help him float up into the air when it was 'performed' in a strange house? If he was a trickster, he was really good. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Truzzi
Hi Kazuba,

I'd love to see any of your correspondence with Truzzi which it is possible for you to share (: I suppose it is in paper format, I could pay for postage and copy expenses. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't know you were on the street. People would tend to think that they will always have enough if they attain the level of education that you obviously have. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, streetwise, not on the street? Yeah, misfit.  But online personas are not the same as real world personas.  I did read your userpage once, and rember it now.  I thought it was really thoughtful.  One of the few userpages I've read all the way through.  About your wife, and I also remember you mentioned playing baseball with your grandson- maybe that wasn't on your userpage.  You have had some amazing teachers, correspondents.  Too bad you don't have the Truzzi stuff.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See this- you can download the Zetetic Scholar. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reviews of God Delusion reverted
Your additions of what you consider to be the failings of The God Delusion have been reverted. They were unquestionably OR. Frankly, I'm surprised to see edits like that coming from someone of two years' editing experience like yourself. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

God delusion redux
I have removed your most recent contribution to Talk:The God Delusion; frankly it was incomprehensible, and looked an awful lot like soapboxing. Further, it was somewhat insutling to Dawkins, making it along the lines of a biography of living persons violation. Please be clear in your comments on talk pages on what you think should be changed on the page, what your sources are, and please avoid engaging in original research. Please remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a web forum or other place to discuss topics. WLU (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment on the talk page is very difficult to understand. It is unclear if you are directing your edit at a specific editor, at a specific edit, if you are trying to suggest a change, it is unclear from your comment, which is almost incomprehensible.  Are you speaking about this edit?  It is not 'intellectually honest' to portray Dawkins as 'being selective'.  Dawkins is deliberately avoiding the deist god that starts the ball rolling at the Big Bang then steps back.  Dawkins' book is aimed at the blatantly supernatural God that listens to prayers, answers them and had a virgin birth of a son, as well as all the other myths that populate omniscient/omnipotent god religions.  You may think this is being selective, but for you to say that it is being selective is both original research and not neutral, particularly given Dawkins' reasons in the book for choosing to discuss only one conception of God.  He's clarifying, not being disingenuous or coy.  Further, why should this information be in the lead?  It would seem to place undue weight on one aspect of the book, in a way that seems to present a skewed version of the contents of the book.
 * How do you believe Dawkins is being selective? The deist god that he discusses is essentially irrelevant to everything that exists currently as it is assumed to have deliberately removed itself from interfering in the day to day functioning of the universe, therefore making it irrelevant to the lives of all humans and a very different conception of the YHWH/New Testemant God.  Dawkins does this to avoid the cop-out of deism, which is that God exists but chooses to act as if he does not.  WLU (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked a bit more into your contributions to the God Delusion, and it very much looks like you are trying to add original analysis to the page. Please seek sources that support criticisms rather than using your own opinion.  Sourced analysis is valid, while unsourced looks like an axe being ground.  Dawkins' book is definitely not perfect, but that is not an excuse to break one of wikipedia's policies.  Looking further through the page's history, it appears that none of your contributions have remained up; I would venture that OR concerns are the reason for this.  Thanks, WLU (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, your talk page is quite long, which can lead to loading delays, particularly for users with slow internet connections. Have you considered archiving?  If you paste the following on the top of your talk page, it will invisibly and automatically archive for you (though I believe you will have to set up the page /Archive 1. WLU (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kubler-Ross
Yes, I'm sure much of it is a waste of time. Still, it seems rather strange that a dog, for example, would seem to react when its owner decided to come home miles away. I'm sorry about the death of your wife. I knew she had cancer, but didn't know she had died. I have to read your userpage, it's on my list. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you going on about??
You wrote 'If you are the one interested in a quick WHY of the Martin Luther King killing. If you are REALLY interested in the problem do more research'. Whats that all about, I am a bit perplexed as to why you would write this on my page--McNoddy (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats O.K Kazuba. All know I am interested in the topic.--McNoddy (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Christian music
Your recent paragraph on the Greek influence of Christian music didn't fit the flow of the article, so I created a sub-section and reworded it. It was also lacking citations so I added the appropriate cleanup tags. Please provide citations from reliable sources before removing these tags. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that your text was temporarily moved to the article's talk page for reworking before reentry into the article. Please feel free to join the discussion there. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Origen
I last reverted something you edited because it was unfootnoted on July 31. You added the footnote almost immediately. When I saw what you had done and it was a serious edit, I helped with the footnoting. I haven't done anything since I don't think. Keep up the good work!Student7 (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Gospels
Thanks for your message re the Gospels. I never thought they were historically accurate! No Scriptures are. All are myths, to be taken symbolically, even if they are woven around any kind of historical source. Scriptures are Teachings which are supposed to be read on many different levels. The Gospels themselves are full of references to this, warning everyone not to take them as literal truth. That's the fatal error of religions - to take them literally. Of course, in the West, the literal meaning was only part of how they were to be viewed pretty much up until the 14th C. Before then, they were seen as having four layers of meaning - literal, moral, allegorical and apophatic (ie Mystical). Of these, the literal was the least important. When you look at the greatest of Christian and indeed Jewish commentators on the Bible you will see just how imaginative and far-reaching their minds were.

Adhering to the literal meaning came in with the growth of heresy, when the Church felt threatened by other interpretations. From then onwards the stage was set for more and more rigid and dogmatic approaches to exegesis. Then with the Enlightenment and then the advances of Science, anything other than literal meanings became irrelevant as Religion dug in against what it saw as Materialist attacks on Truth. So Religious people have ended up looking increasingly stupid, believing in things which are meant to be symbolic as physical reality in the face of obvious Scientific realities. In the process, any means of gaining any value from Scriptures in terms of Inner Meaning has been lost...

Everything, from the Scriptures to the Buddha, the Koran, the Old and the New Testament, were written, collated, edited and formed a long time AFTER the original Teacher was dead and/or his followers. What you are getting is the amalgamation of a culture/spirituality/way of thinking often filtered through even later historical and political necessity...

If you take the Gospels as 'historically accurate documents' you are finished, whether you are a Believer or not. Such a thing is impossible. If Scriptures have any potential value its because they deal with Interior Processes or Psychic rather than Material Realities.

Historical accuracy doesn't come into it for me!

Lol!

ThePeg (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion
Oh, I'm guessing people don't think the Bible is a big deal because it's just religion and who cares what people believe as long as they aren't screwing with science? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 19:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. &mdash; the _ ed  17  &mdash; 01:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Kazuba

Thanks for your contributions to Resurrection. As you know, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia. What goes into the encyclopedia is a matter of consensus between the editors.

Your edit to Resurection was undone because, in my opinion, quite a bit of what you wrote was not relevant to the subject of Resurrection. Being taken up to heaven, for example, is not a case of resurrection. Post-death appearances are not necessarily a case of resurrection, and the resurrection of Jesus is dealt with at length. It is not necessary to list everything listed about that resurrection.

That said you are welcome to disagree with my assessment. We can talk about this at Talk:Resurrection. Unfortunately Resurrection has been the target of vandalism in the last few days, so that makes some of us tend to remove anything that looks suspicious. You are welcome to discuss the matter at Talk:Resurrection. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to "biased review"
On my User_talk:5Q5 page you wrote I was reading your comments on the Dean Radin talk page and you used the term "biased" review." I can see where I wrote "biased website" but I don't see where I said the review was biased. If this is about restoring a criticism section to the Radin article, I also wrote I am not opposed to that, but shouldn't being a biographical article, references for statements that appear to be negative must or should be from neutral sources, not an overtly Skeptics website; otherwise, the article could have a Praise section with references from pro-paranormal book reviewers. 5Q5 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No
No, but you'd be doing science if you asked "are there such things as angels." In the case you describe, it is assumed a priori that the angels exist. Doing the processes of science on that which assumes the unproven is not science, but doing the processes of science to prove the unproven is science. However, no one has clearly defined what "science" is. That's just my opinion. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Bunch of answers here (: —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ed Dames Prediction
No idea, and that link doesn't work.... —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes
Yes, way better. For one thing, you got the link right, or changed it (: —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Attacking the man
I have removed that section on Gary Schwartz about his work with Allison DuBois.

You are clearly attacking (obsessing) the person, rather than adding information about who he is. Since you have been cautioned for this behavior in the past (see below), I will ask admin help if you continue this approach. Tom Butler (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

=
=============================

 Findings of Fact Kazuba 16) Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was cited by Dradin as a troubling editor. Kazuba presents an extensive inventory of his positions on his user page and has made significant critical comments at User talk:Dradin.

passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Remedies Kazuba 5) Kazuba is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. This remedy is not effective until sufficient notice has been made to Kazuba and affirmed after an opportunity to respond.

passes 8-0 at 03:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not!!!
Do not edit my user page! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tom_Butler&diff=260411879&oldid=239320024 Tom Butler (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Assumptions of bad faith should be set aside, Tom Butler. It looks like Kazuba posted a comment to you user page instead of your talk page by accident.  Such things do occasionally happen and do not deserve such a response. Jehochman Talk 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit and Ascension
Hi Kazuba

Thanks for your comments. Actually you don't need to be able to read Ancient Greek to be able to find this stuff out. A good Bible Dictionary or a good thorough commentary will tell you a lot about the words used in the original texts of the Bible. Even if you did read Greek you would have to be something of an expert to be able to deal with difficult translation issues like this on your own.

I'm not sure that the Ascension of Jesus "doesn't count". I would agree that it's not given the same emphasis as the Resurrection, and I think it's for exactly the reason you suggest. The most miraculous thing is Jesus being alive after death, and where he went after that is of secondary importance. My opinion is that the Ascension story is there to emphasize the nature of Jesus' Resurrection as being different from a "coming back to life". The Bible contains other stories of people brought back to life, and in all those cases (as far as we know) they continued living as before and then died in the normal way. The point of the Ascension is to say that Jesus passed on to something else - a new mode of life beyond death, not merely a return to the old mode of life. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Dunglas Home
Sorry about that last edit, a bug was introduced in one of the scripts that I am using and I didn't notice it until I had been using it for about an hour. Thanks for cleaning up my inadvertent mistake. Best Regards. Symplectic Map (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User page
Hi Kazuba--remember me? you were one of the first people I communicated with here on WP. What happened to your user page? Sincerely liked it. Will you put it back?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not put it on a blog, linked to your userpage? I do something like that, for comments that probably stray beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable here. Take a look at my userpage--the blog space is from google, entirely gratis.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Gary Schwartz‎
Re: "I do not like to be accused of lying and making stuff up without proof" Who has accused you of this? Could you provide a link to such an accusation and I'll have a look. Otherwise you should probably strike it out if you cannot substatiate it. Thanks, Verbal chat  16:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediumship
Well, I put my foot in it - thank you for correcting. I was trying to clean up your sentence that I saw as potentially ambiguous, but clearly I misread it entirely. Good work. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Conversions of Value of Currency Between Decades
That is cutting an awfully fine line. I'd say get a reference for the multiplier in value and you would be on the safe side.Simonm223 (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to help.Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 AJ Cham  13:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Leonora Piper
This is in response to your post on the Leonora Piper talk page which has been reverted.

Kazuba, I'm sorry to drop into the middle of this but I saw your post and it intrigued me. I think one of the greatest mysteries in the Internet is "What is Wikipedia for?" Quite a few people have tried to edit Wikipedia believing it to be the place to put your findings and your research so that others can see them. Unfortunately, that's not what Wikipedia was built for. Others try and post what they have seen to be the "truth", again they will find themselves getting reverted because that's not a goal of Wikipedia. I guess the best way to describe it is "The Largest Collection In The World". Wikipedia collects all the other knowledge and puts it in one place so it can be referenced. You express above your love and talent for research - I thinks that's wonderful. We need people like you because we already have enough people like me (I can't find my socks on my feet). The issue would be putting that research on Wikipedia, so long as it's in a book or over-sighted article, fine. If not, you'll get push-back. Also, we have to present both sides of an argument. There's no way to quantify how famous a person is, so Wikipedia tries to stay away from determining who's more or less popular. To say that a thing was very popular is one thing, to compare it to other things that may also be popular is different. Even statements like the ones in the section on "Phinuit" are a bit too far. There are statements that refer to "Phinuit" as a doctor and that his French wasn't very good... That's intimating that "Phinuit" is a real person who could be a doctor and know French. Since there's never been any evidence proving this all we can do is refer to it as "the entity Mrs. Piper referred to as Phinuit". These are some of the restrictions placed on us by Wikipedia, they make it so the stuff we add to an article is concrete and cited to other sources so Wikipedia doesn't get in trouble for "making up stuff". I understand your indignation, I have an article about my father on this site and I can't add several things to it because they are not written down anywhere. I lived with the man for 15 years... was raised by him... ate his cooking... but I can't say "he had one brown eye and one green eye" because it's not written somewhere else. Please don't loose heart, try and stick around and if you need help presenting an argument, please leave a message on mytalk page and we'll work it out together. Padillah (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear your experience here was less than enjoyable. This is a personal outlook that differs from person to person. Some people like the exchange of ideas and the ability to find obscure citations for little known facts. Some find the copy-editing and flow of the article body to be a great work for them. And, unfortunately, some are here for the drama. I only hope you can step away for a short while and decide to return later. If you ever find yourself in need of help, please let me know and I will do the best I can. Padillah (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting user page
First time I've run across this page. I think you may have misunderstood Dawkins when he said (in your words) that "the true nature of the universe eludes us because the human mind evolved only to understand the 'middle-sized' world we can observe." He was talking about our limited sense perceptions. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I like when you wrote "That the Old One required a human sacrifice (Jesus) to give humanity salvation and an afterlife (immortality) seems outrageous! The great majestic omnipotent creator of everything could find no other way? [...] Perhaps under a very thin veneer of civilization many of the faithful prefer barbarism." You nailed it. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, I just watched The Rings of Akhaten. The shoe fits. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Richard Hodgson
I am thinking of creating an article for Richard Hodgson in the next few days, if I create it perhaps you can help add in some references if you have the time. Cheers. Fodor Fan (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have created a stub here Richard Hodgson. The Piper stuff needs to be added at some point, obviously an entire section will have to be added in on that. I don't have time until next Monday to finish the article off, but if you have the time feel free to add anything in. Thanks. Fodor Fan (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Eric Dingwall article has been created but needs some more work. According to what I have read, Dingwall became an opponent of Harry Price. Fodor Fan (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Kazuba as you have seen on my talk page I won't be on here for six months after this edit, there may be some controversy on the Leonora Piper article, so make sure to watch for any vandalism, some random IP seems to want to include the mention that Bessie Beals was a real person, as stated she probably was there as there may be millions of Bessie Beals! But the "Bessie Beals" that Hall invented was purely fictitious and was definitely not his niece, but I agree the comment seems to be real i.e. it appears there was a Bessie Beals in real life that he knew but nothing to do with the Piper case. Remember spiritualists are very eager to support Piper they are going to try and put holes or lies in any of the skeptical material no matter how small. When I come back in December 2013 there are only a handful of things left that I want to complete, but I was intrigued by a medium known as Bert Reese who was a Pellet (note) reader. Houdini and Joseph Rinn claimed to unmask him, I have not read Rinn's book but apparently he found out his cheating methods. I would be interested in knowing the story as I was planning on creating an article for Reese but this medium is hard to get references on. If you ever find any references for Reese feel free to put them on my talk page. Take care. Fodor Fan (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Kazuba, I went ahead and created the Bert Reese article. I wanted to create it as I don't want to create anymore articles on this website, especially not when I come back in December. I have no interest in researching mediumship or spiritualism anymore it has taken up too much of my time. I have indeed spent over the years around £1600 on psychical books! I could have brought a motorbike with that money! As I got rid of most of them, it does seem a bit of a waste. But the knowledge I learnt is priceless. Feel free to add in the Rinn material if you ever get the time, if not never mind. Thanks. Fodor Fan (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Ford puzzle, not wikipedians words but taken as exact quote from ref source book
Can a source be "quoted" and referenced also. How do you identify and save a direct quote? How does the reader know? Reference each and every sentence? Can the book's author's feelings be presented and not that of the wikipedian? Please contact me to clear this up. Who wrote what? Kazuba (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking. Remember, your sources need to be secondary (such as an author, critic, scholar, etc.) that analyze or comments on what Ford wrote. If you have a secondary source talking about Ford you wish to quote, the structure you would use would be something like: According to Author X, "Ford did A, B and C." But you can't quote a primary source (such as Ford himself) then write your own analysis of it. You may want to read over WP:SUBSTANTIATE as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Back for a short period
Kazuba, I have come back for a few days to wikipedia to finish off the Leonora Piper article. You may find this article I created interesting Rosina Thompson. Fodor Fan (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will also fully complete the Henry Slade article. Fodor Fan (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in the mentalist Anna Eva Fay, she managed to fool William Crookes into believing she had genuine psychic powers. Fodor Fan (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also see Washington Irving Bishop, his death was a mystery . Fodor Fan (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Henry Slade
Regarding Henry Slade, there's some claims that he (she?) was a hermaphrodite? I noticed Joseph Rinn mentioned this in his book, but also I noticed somewhere it was said, that he only admitted to being a hermaphrodite when he was drunk and it was joke, but other sources say he was examined by doctors after death and he was not male. Any thoughts on this? This is one of the weirdest things I have ever read! Fodor Fan (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have my books anymore but a friend told me Henry Slade confessed all his mediumship was fraud before his death. This is confirmed when I looked. Harry Houdini mentions the confession Fodor Fan (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Fundamentalism
47% of people seriously believe that every word of the Bible is literally true. Dickie birdie (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Perm retired
Kazuba I only briefly came back to wiki to finish some articles off, I thank your edits on the Home and Piper article, you and me had many of the same interests and some good conversations on debunking mediums and magic. I read your user page yesterday and I find it interesting that you knew Milbourne Christopher and Martin Gardner, you are obviously very experienced in some of these topics related to magic and mediums. You sound like a fascinating individual. I hope you enjoy my edits, perhaps you can continue editing some of them. It's a shame that people still get duped into mediums are genuine, if you know sleight of hand then you know their tricks but most people don't study this. You may be interested in the books by Joseph Dunninger, I know you have already read the book by Joseph Rinn. I am no longer editing on this website. I have given up psychical research for good, it bogs you down after a while and it doesn't fit in with my science career. I would rather spend my life in nature than reading about all this psychic stuff. My girlfriend lives in New Zealand and I was over there a few months ago but am thinking of permanently moving to NZ. Good luck with your research. All the best. Fodor Fan (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Kazuba I have come back to Wikipedia (again) to add something a friend sent me, I won't be hanging around for very long on here as this will be the last edits I do, but thought I would leave you a message. It's about Leonora Piper's maid. You may find it interesting. Fodor Fan (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in contacting the user, he has created articles for magicians. Fodor Fan (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Check the section I added on the Dean Connor case. Fodor Fan (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Franek Kluski
See my edits on the talk-page and on the article of Franek Kluski, you may be interested in this case. I am in the process of adding some information about Harry Houdini, he was able to replicate Klusiki's "spirit molds" by natural methods. Fodor Fan (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Accordion
I saw some of your edits on the D. D. Home article. How do you believe the accordion trick was done? According to Crookes' report he had Home's feet and hands controlled during the experiment. Do you think Home used a music-box? I believe it was trickery just interested in knowing the method. The small harmonica in the mouth hypothesis does not support the evidence, I believe even Randi has retracted this claim? JuliaHunter (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you read Crookes original report you will see that one of Homes' hand (on the table) was actually controlled rather well to an extent by a sitter and Crookes himself, it was not free, also the accordion was apparently seen 'floating' in the cage by a sitter under the table. Can you please look at this link (also see comments). Michael Prescott is a paranormal believer so nothing will convince him to the contrary, but the more I look at this, I see the trickery would have to be done without his hands. He had only one hand free during the experiment but it was positioned under a cage. JuliaHunter (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In Crookes report (online here ) he writes "Very soon the accordion was seen by those on each side to be waving about in a somewhat curious manner; then sounds came from it, and finally several notes were played in succession. Whilst this was going on, my assistant went under the table and reported that the accordion was expanding and contracting; at the same time, it was seen that the hand of Mr. Home by which it was held was quite still, his other hand resting on the table." The question is how could Home move his hand inside the cage and play the accordion with limited movement? This is very different than the Henry Slade accordion trick that didn't have these sorts of controls in place. By the way I am no way endorsing Home. I believe he was a fraudulent like all mediums. I am a skeptic, I do not believe in psychic powers, I just think some of the speculations how he cheated are wrong on this accordion trick. I don't see how he could have utilized his hand. I think the real source of this mystery is somewhere else. He may have utilized a music-box with pressure from his leg or a secret accomplice may have been involved. JuliaHunter (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In Crookes' report linked above, it says "very soon the accordion was seen by those on each side to be waving about in a curious manner". Do you know how to explain this? According to Crookes the accordion was observed to be suspended in mid air (floating?) in the cage. Were the sitters mistaken? Skeptics say it was suspended on black thread and by a hook? But Home had one hand under the table, could he really attach the black thread and hook in such a short amount of time, with one hand? JuliaHunter (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the videos and well you seem to know a lot about magic, so I am asking what is an educated guess from your perspective? James Randi thinks that Home used a mouth organ and hid it in his moustache but this is a silly suggestion, the room was lit to an extent by gas (though we are not told how much) and Home had séance sitters either side of him. Mouth organs are not exactly small. How could he have used one and balanced it when his hand was held under a table and the other top of the table? It makes no sense. Also no mouth organs were ever found in his belongings. So what do you think? Home played the accordion with one hand like Slade, but how did he make the accordion 'float' about in the cage? Various researchers have suggested hidden thread, but would a piece of thread really hold a heavy accordion and how would he have attached all of this in just a few moments with a single hand weighted down with an accordion? He would have needed a hook as well. Like you say we will never know for sure because no trained magician was present and Crookes was gullible but like I said, something else may have been going on. I am thinking a secret accomplice like magic historian Barry Wiley has suggested. Are you in contact with many other magicians? Could you ask them? What do other modern day magicians think about the accordion experiment? There is discussion about this on Michael Prescott's blog from another skeptic. JuliaHunter (talk)

The reason for asking you, is because you know about magic, not many other people have that much knowledge so your opinion is more reliable. Do you know anything about the Nina Kulagina case? Have you seen her videos? It was invisible thread according to magicians, do you agree? JuliaHunter (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Society for Psychical Research
Check the talk-page for the Society for Psychical Research article on what I dug up. The Society originally started out as a religious/spiritualist organization made up of devout believers. The majority of its members were either religious (Christian), strong spiritualists (associated with the British National Association of Spiritualists (BNAS) or Theosophists. I have managed to trace a lot of the original names of the first council members to early defunct spiritualist magazines.

Later many of these members either left, some resigned due to exposure of fraudulent mediums or died and by around 1906 the Society was free from most of these devout spiritualist members who were no who were no longer involved with the Society. The spiritualist element in the Society was revived by Richard Hodgson from his studies with Leonora Piper (this managed to fool a lot of people, and many were sucked in). But if you read Joseph Rinn's book (as cited by the young Fodor Fan above who used to edit Wikipedia), Rinn states that this may have been a publicity stunt to draw in back spiritualists to the SPR.

What I can gather from all the sources I have read like Janet Oppenheim is that after Charles Darwin published his famous book on evolution, religious or spiritualist folk were greatly shaken and hoped to cling to something spiritual through psychical research. Their agenda from the very start was not scientific investigation, but a biased religious agenda in an attempt to try and undermine naturalism. The very origins of psychical research are religious (Ruth Brandon states that her book also but not to the level of detail I have dug up). Its funny how modern day psychical researchers think they are doing science. Look at the very foundation of the SPR, the originators were religious. Yet this history has been covered up by many of its modern members or most likely just they are not aware of it.

That said, I have a deep respect for a very small minority of psychical researchers like Frank Podmore, Theodore Besterman, Simeon Edmunds or even Walter Franklin Prince's early work, which was highly sceptical of the physical phenomena in séances which were undoubtedly fraudulent, and funny enough these guys were often attacked in the SPR journal by believers.

I noticed you mentioned Edmunds book on the Daniel Dunglas Home article which says "The accordion in the SPR collection is not the actual one Home used. They display a duplicate". Do you know of any other sources that mention this, I can't seem to find much about this duplicate. JuliaHunter (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)