No announcement yet.

Rudi Schneider Case. An example of errors galore on wikipedia by so called 'skeptics'

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rudi Schneider Case. An example of errors galore on wikipedia by so called 'skeptics'

    I drafted this topic months ago but decided not to post it, it has become coherent to post now ... The errors were added by 'Fodor Fan' on wikipedia and almost identical errors were made by a 'Forest' on rationalwiki .. I have challenged them to fix the disinformation.

    Professors Stefan Meyer and Karl Przibram caught Rudi [Schneider] freeing his arm in a series of seances.
    Error 1
    - Wrong - Meyer had made a signed statement straight after that very séance 'the controls were perfect'. Professor Meyer and Professor Przibram later admitted 'Rudi Schneider had never been caught in fraud' by them during their experiments. [Psychische Studien 1924] All Meyer and Prizbram had to offer was an unproven theory on how to free an arm, which even if achieved still cannot explain all the reported phenomena ... he was not 'caught', they imagined a method.
    Last edited by Open Mind; January 8th, 2014, 10:39 PM. Reason: Accidental wipe while copy/pasting for later comment. Restored back prior version

  • #2
    Error 2 - Missing information
    Warren Vinton sat with Rudi in several sittings and came to the conclusion that the movement of objects were fraudulently produced by other members of the Schneider family concealed in the room. In April 1927, Vinton published an article which accused Schneider of being a fraud and using a hidden accomplice
    Inexperienced investigator Vinton had been sent to investigate by die-hard skeptic conjuror Eric Dingwall (joined CSICOP in old age) Dingwall had previously written upon the Scheniders case an accomplice theory 'involves us with greater difficulties than the acceptance of the phenomena' . Vinton had no practical theory of fraud, neither did Dingwall..... Dingwall had also made signed statement Schneider's brother (earlier case) produced genuine phenomena..
    Last edited by Open Mind; January 7th, 2014, 08:05 AM.


    • #3
      Error 3
      Another researcher, Malcolm Bird, also supported Vinton's accusations
      Also wrong - Malcolm Bird did not attend that Vinton séance . Bird also contradicted Vinton's theory writing '….the maouever of climbing it in the dark would have been absurdly impossible . It was rickety in extreme, all cluttered up with objects small, large, breakable ….and it was much higher than would have inferred from Vinton's text.... it was evident enough that this much at least was inspired by the will to disbelieve [on Vinton's part] and it quite lacked the common-sense element.

      Although Malcolm Bird also suspected cheating, he never detected fraud at the only séance he attended, he turned down other invitations. Bird instead speculated hypothetically on how cheating could have occurred by a person entering the room. However Bird held the key to the locked room that would allow his theory to work, which Bird offered to Captain Kolenig fellow sitter who Bird then hypothetically suspected could have been an accomplice who let in another accomplice (that Bird didn't notice) to try and explain away what had occurred later. Bird's claims are contrived with no proper evidence.
      Last edited by Open Mind; January 14th, 2014, 12:18 PM. Reason: Captain not Major


      • #4
        Error 4
        Dr. Walter Prince attended a series of sittings with Rudi and no paranormal phenomena was observed.
        Wrong - Other witnesses at the very same séances documented phenomena did occur. A. Sieburg wrote 'such events are so staggering as to lead to consternation. …. try as I might I could not find anything that would lead to fraud'

        Dr Walter Prince was a Christian minister in various cases opposed to spiritualist claims (but not ESP claims which didn't contradict Christianity). He was reportedly hard of hearing and other researchers suspected he often missed phenomena was occurring in room (i.e. eyes not going to where unexpected sounds should send them). Prince also claimed an anonymous Mr X had reported seeing an tiny black object pass through a keyhole , he refused to say who Mr X was. There is no documented evidence of any such claim or report in the séance records. It seems this allowed Prince to invent a implausible theory of fraud through a keyhole and blame the absurd idea on an anonymous Mr X who probably didn't exist.
        Last edited by Open Mind; January 7th, 2014, 08:07 AM.


        • #5
          Error 5 - Missing information
          [Prince] wrote "despite my studied and unremitting complaisance, no phenomena have occured when I had any part in the control, save curtain movement which were capable of the simplest explanation."[2]
          During the séance that Prince held Schneiders two hands (to prevent cheating) when the curtain was moving the sitter next to Prince aware of his curtain blowing theory shouted out 'Dr Prince, Dr Prince his [Rudi Schneider's] face is in your hands' … in other words Schneider wasn't blowing the curtain … and his 'simplest explanation' was nonsense according to fellow witnesses present.


          • #6
            Error 6
            In a series of experiments in 1932 which included the scientists and researchers Dr. William Brown, C.E.M. Joad, Professor H. F. Fraser-Harris, Professor J. Alexander Gun and Julian Huxley, no paranormal phenomena was observed in the seance room with Rudi.
            Wrong - On the contrary 506 possibly paranormal events are documented in 1932. These catagories include infra-red disturbance, moving objects, sounds heard e.g. bells, something paranormal seen, cold air reports, observers touched.

            Error 7

            More important still, 1932 is near the end of Schneider testing, when his phenomena were weaker but still evident to a lesser extent. The rational wiki and wikipedia articles IGNORE the earlier stronger still evidence. Analogy: This is like claiming there was no holocaust by using a start date after WW2
            Last edited by Open Mind; March 25th, 2014, 07:22 AM. Reason: Typing error fixed the word 'catagories'


            • #7
              Error 8 - missing information
              The zoologist Solly Zuckerman also attended some seance sittings and wrote that the mediumship of Rudi had not passed any scientific tests
              Zuckerman wasn't at the seances where Rudi did pass strict controls.

              Of the hundreds including scientists, magicians, heads of secret service, police, doctors, lawyers, poliicians who attended the Schneider brother seances and made positive signed statements, the opinion of Zuckerman and the handful of other 'skeptics' was hardly a consensus.
              Last edited by Open Mind; March 25th, 2014, 07:23 AM. Reason: Typing error Zuckerman, not Zuxkerman


              • #8
                Error 9

                Rudi claimed he could levitate objects but according to the psychical researcher Harry Price a photograph taken on April 28, 1932 showed that Rudi had managed to free his arm to move a handkerchief from the table.[4]
                There is documented evidence that proves Harry Price lied about these events. Harry Price held Rudi Schneiders hands at that séance, he reported no freeing of hand during or after séance. Other witnesses reported no freeing of hand.

                11 months later (!) Harry Price claims (or makes up the claim by forging photograph) he had a photograph catching Rudi Schneider in fraud, but he doesn't tell anyone (so the later claim goes) except his supposedly his colleague Mrs K M Goldney apparently on 28th April 1932 . Since Goldney lied on other cases she cannot necessarily be trusted either (Price and Goldney alledgedly had an affair according to one Borley Rectory case witness) more importantly ...

                Despite the photograph showing alledged (unproven) fraud on 13th July 1932 AFTER the above date supposedly reported to Goldney, Harry Price had claimed to colleague Fraser-Harris 'not a shred of evidence that Rudi ever cheated' ... so Price lied to one or the other.

                In otherwords the skeptics version depends upon accuser Price lying at some point (possibly because he was angry at Schneider for choosing to be researched by other labs)

                Error 10 - missing information
                A few days before Harry Price died he reaffirmed Rudi Schneider had produced genuine phenomena in his lab experiments.
                Last edited by Open Mind; January 7th, 2014, 09:50 AM.


                • #9
                  The references to the above can mostly be found in the book 'The Strange Case of Rudi Schneider' and elsewhere. .. I see no point in providing further details for so called 'skeptics' to rearrange their errors to another biased, one sided version on wikipedia, etc..


                  • #10
                    to open mind

                    Open Mind,

                    There is a word limit so I can't post everything, I am only posting once with agreement with the admin. I just was to say I am not Boblius or the other impersonations that have occurred of me on this forum, I only have one ISP and the admin knows it. I think Bob might be a legit user but there's lot's of impersonations of me out there and even a stalker who has caused trouble for me, it isn't pleasant. You will be please to know I quit Wikipedia. As for this case lots of your stuff has been debunked, the psychical researcher John Randall has defended Price with all the references. All the accusations fall away:

                    Harry Price - The Case for the Defence by John Randall

                    Please note that many SPR members hated Price so they would of accuse him of things. And Price's National Laboratory of Psychical Research was seen as a rival to the SPR organisation. As Randall reveals the accusations have no solid evidence behind hem. A photograph expert confirmed the photograph of Schneider cheating was genuine. As Randall reports:

                    In the first place, it is by no means certain that the photographs were faked, and at least one photographic expert has testified to the contrary (Harrison, 1979). To me, a mere amateur in matters photographic, the pictures seem to show exactly what Price claimed, namely that the boy had freed a hand and was reaching behind him with fraudulent intent. I cannot agree with the suggestion, made by Dr Fraser-Harris and others, that the movement was accidental, caused by Rudi making a sudden jerk as the flash went off. The pictures clearly show Rudi's trunk twisted round and his arm extended in a straight line towards the séance table.
                    Regarding Price you should get hold of the biography of Price by his literary executor Paul Tabori, the other biographies are quite biased. You claim:

                    Wrong - Meyer had made a signed statement straight after that very séance 'the controls were perfect'. Professor Meyer and Professor Przibram later admitted 'Rudi Schneider had never been caught in fraud' by them during their experiments. [Psychische Studien 1924] All Meyer and Prizbram had to offer was an unproven theory on how to free an arm, which even if achieved still cannot explain all the reported phenomena ... he was not 'caught', they imagined a method.
                    This is not true Open Mind, please see the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology where it says "Dr. Stefan Meyer and Prof. Dr. Karl Przibram, of the Institut fur Radiumforschung der Academie der Wissenschaffen, Vienna, detected Rudi evading control." He was caught (detected) evading control, just like many fraudulent mediums of that era were caught like Mina Crandon and Eusapia Palladino. There is no conspiracy, it was not imaginary speculation.

                    I very much doubt they made the claim 'Rudi Schneider had never been caught in fraud", do you have an exact reference? You need to cite your claims. There are documented letters from Przibram to Price admitting he believed Rudi was a fraud. One of these letters is briefly mentioned in the biography of Price by Paul Tabori. Sorry I don't have the Tabori book anymore so I can't cite it, but here's another letter that directly contradicts your claims:

                    On April 28, 1933, Professor Przibram wrote me: "We know that Rudi evaded control at the [Vienna] seances and we have no reason to believe that any of the phenomena we saw were of supranormal character.
                    From Harry Price. (1936). Confessions of a ghost-hunter. p. 233


                    I have managed to find the letter that is mentioned in Tabori's book, it refutes what you are claiming Open Mind! Here it is:

                    DEAR SIR,

                    From a review of your book on Rudi Schneider in Nature of April 8th, I see that you have succeeded in photographing old friend Rudi in the act of freeing one hand from the control, and I wish to congratulate you on this success.

                    I am not surprised at this fact, as professor Stefan Meyer (the Director of this Institut) and I attended, in 1923-24, some sittings with Rudi Schneider, during which we got some insight into his methods.

                    As one of the controllers, Professor Meyer noticed the freeing one hand during a 'telekinetic' sitting, all 'telekinetic' phenomena ceasing when Rudi's arms were made visible by luminous signs.
                    After we had studied the methods of control that were accepted - or not accepted - by the medium and his friends, I succeeded in copying Rudi's famous 'levitation' to the complete satisfaction of those attending my 'séances'; I have not heard that he has ever 'levitated' since then.

                    A report on our observations was laid, in 1924, before a committee (since dissolved) for the investigation of occult phenomena consisting of Viennese scientists.

                    Yours truly,

                    (Signed) K. PRZIBRAM
                    This is solid proof that your accusations are false Open Mind. You claim Professor Meyer and Prizibram did not catch Schneider evade control and it was only imaginary speculation but the letter says that Meyer observed him free his hand. Do you admit to being proven wrong on this? You see this is what happens when you only read biased spiritualist publications, you are getting wrong information.

                    As for your other posts, yes I know about Anita Gregory, she was very opposed to Price. She was quite credulous even claiming the Enfield poltergeist was genuine. Enfield Poltergeist - CSI

                    Even Alan Gauld has defended Price over the Schneider case, and admitted the photograph was not faked. As Randall reports:

                    Unfortunately, the primary sources needed for a fair assessment of Price's work are not easily accessible to the public, with the result that popular writers simply repeat the views of critics as if they were established fact. For example, Scott Rogo in his Mind Over Matter (1986) repeats Anita Gregory's accusation that Price faked photographs of Rudi Schneider (Gregory, 1977; 1985). Nowhere in his book does Rogo give the slightest indication that this interpretation has been challenged by others (e.g. Anderson, 1986; Gauld, 1978; Harrison, 1979). Similarly, I have come across numerous books and articles which cite the famous 'debunking' report on Borley Rectory (Dingwall, Goldney & Hall, 1956), but very few which mention the criticisms of that report by Michael Coleman and Robert Hastings (Coleman, 1956; Hastings, 1969).
                    As for your claims about Price supressing the photographs, that isn't the truth. As Randall reports:

                    Secondly, it is clear that Price did not keep the matter secret, except from those whom he considered disloyal to the National Laboratory. Rudi, Mitzi (Rudi's fiancée) and Ethel Beenham, Price's secretary, saw the photographs on the very day they were developed, and Mrs Goldney saw them a little while later. Many years later Mrs Goldney was to claim that Price made her swear to keep silent about what she had seen, but by that time she was firmly in the camp of the opponents of Price, and we have no way of telling how reliable her memory may have been. As long ago as 1955 Dr Robert Thouless protested vigorously about the unethical practice of promising to keep something secret and then revealing it many years later, when the alleged culprit is dead and unable to defend himself (Thouless, 1955). Price certainly told several of his friends about the photographs, including Feilding, who referred to the revelation as "a fine bombshell" (Tabori, 1974, p. 114). In a later letter to Feilding, Price said that he had also informed René Sudre and Eric Dingwall, but did not see why he should throw all his cards on the table for the benefit of those who were playing dirty tricks on him (Gregory, 1985, p. 292). There is in existence a letter, partly reproduced by Gregory, in which Price clearly invites Dr Fraser-Harris to examine the photographs.
                    Similar to Randall I believe Price was honest when it came to psychical research (yes we know he lied about his background), he never faked Borley, read Randall's research and there are countless witnesses who testified he was honest. Randall has rebuted your points. Also see Harry Price - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                    I recommend you get hold of Simeon Edmunds book Spiritualism: A Critical Survey, it is a very neutral book by an SPR member that agrees with the skeptics that the majority of mediums (especially physical mediums like Helen Duncan) were fraudulent. If you read Randall's paper he concludes:

                    So far in this paper I have tried to show that the two major accusations made against Price, namely that he practised deception in regard to Rudi Schneider and at Borley, are almost certainly false. No court of law would convict a man on the slender evidence which has been presented for these alleged offences.
                    You write:

                    A few days before Harry Price died he reaffirmed Rudi Schneider had produced genuine phenomena in his lab experiments.
                    I am not denying this, even Randall covers it, yes he reaffirmed his belief in the lab experiments for psychokinesis. Price believed some mediums were genuine like Stella Cranshaw but he opposed the spirit-hypothesis. I don't agree everything with Price. The majority of psychical researchers have dismissed physical mediumship as fraudulent but you never cite this data.

                    BTW I do agree with you C. E. M joad was literally caught with his pants down, you were correct he was not present at séances he claimed to be at, I believe it was William Henry Salter in the SPR who heavily criticised Joad which effected Price's laboratory. National Laboratory of Psychical Research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                    But Salter had played tricks on Price, according to Randall:

                    There is direct evidence of at least two 'dirty tricks' played upon Price by members of the SPR. On October 9th, 1931, W. H. Salter travelled to Borley to try to persuade the Rector, the Revd Lionel Foyster, to sever his links with Price and accept the ministrations of the SPR instead (Banks, 1996, p. 92). Since Price had been studying the phenomena at the allegedly haunted rectory since June 1929, this was a clear example of unprofessional conduct. The reader may like to imagine how the BMA would respond to a medical practitioner who tried to steal a colleague's patients. Yet this highly unethical act is not mentioned by Gregory in her article on "Ethics and Psychical Research" in which Price is condemned unreservedly (Gregory, 1974).
                    I don't oppose all your research, I just think you contradict yourself by pretending to be neutral or "open minded" when you are a full-blown believer in the supernatural, you never admit fraud when it has occurred, even blatantly obvious frauds such as Eva Carrière who used very silly ectoplasm "materializations" made from cheesecloth or cut outs from newspapers you won't just come out and admit they cheated. You claim every medium was genuine and I have never seen you applaud a skeptic, every skeptic is a pseudoskeptic to you.

                    Even believers like Hereward Carrington admitted the majority of mediums were fake. The problem is you are only reading books by spiritualists they filter out the bad cases against the mediums. Here's Carrington's book The physical phenomena of spiritualism, fraudulent and genuine : being a brief account of the most important historical phenomena, a criticism of their evidential value, and a complete exposition of the methods employed in fraudulently reproducing th which reveals many tricks mediums used in slate-writing or materialization mediumship etc, there are only a handful of mediums he claimed were genuine like Leonora Piper but she was exposed by other researchers like Ivor Lloyd Tuckett.

                    I highly recommend you read Joseph McCabe's book Is Spiritualism Based on Fraud? it contains many exposures, it's online here: Is spiritualism based on fraud ?: the evidence given by Sir A.C. Doyle and others there's not a single medium who was investigated who not exposed. Contrary to your claim on this forum D. D. Home was caught using tricks on a number of occasions Daniel Dunglas Home - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and his levitation was a hoax.

                    How do you get round all the researchers like Frederick Merrifield who observed Home cheat? You seem to dismiss anyone who accuses fraud as a skeptic, but he was a believer in spiritualism not a skeptic, why would he lie? Let's look at a very blatant and obvious frauds William Eglinton and Henry Slade, do you agree they were caught red-handed? I am trying to find some middle ground here between you and me, It would be a start if you admitted the obvious cases of fraud.

                    I started off like you I used to be a spiritualist and believe they were all genuine, I would only read believer spiritualist books like Doyle's History of Spiritualism etc. It changed when I came across Hereward Carrington and Harry Price as they reported that the majority of mediums were using conjuring tricks, I started to realise the spiritualist books were not reporting the fraud, they filter it out. Carrington (a believer) has an entire book on their tricks. Oddly even himself was duped by Palladino. He was not an expert conjuror. Some of these mediums were very clever, and yes there have been cases (very few) where mediums have fooled magicians.

                    You write:

                    Although Malcolm Bird also suspected cheating, he never detected fraud at the only séance he attended, he turned down other invitations. Bird instead speculated hypothetically on how cheating could have occurred by a person entering the room. However Bird held the key to the locked room that would allow his theory to work, which Bird offered to an army Major Kolenig fellow sitter who Bird then hypothetically suspected could have been an accomplice who let in another accomplice (that Bird didn't notice) to try and explain away what had occurred later. Bird's claims are contrived with no proper evidence.
                    I agree with you he suspected cheating but never observed it. I never claimed Bird observed fraud. Yes it was speculation from Bird. Malcolm Bird is also an unreliable witness in my opinion. You should get hold of Massimo Polidoro's book Final Séance: The Strange Friendship Between Houdini and Conan Doyle. It shows how Bird was very likely stage managing some of the séances for Mina Crandon. There is a lot of strange stuff about him. He had many disputes with Walter Franklin Prince.

                    Unfortunately I can't comment on some of your stuff as you rarely reference it, for example you say:

                    During the séance that Prince held Schneiders two hands (to prevent cheating) when the curtain was moving the sitter next to Prince aware of his curtain blowing theory shouted out 'Dr Prince, Dr Prince his [Rudi Schneider's] face is in your hands' … in other words Schneider wasn't blowing the curtain … and his 'simplest explanation' was nonsense according to fellow witnesses present.
                    Where is this from? Gregory? I think you have been unfair to Price by doing ad-hominem against him calling him a Nazi or having affairs with women. I think you have taken this from a book by Richard Morris. Randall covers this in his paper. Don't attack the man attack his research if anything, it doesn't matter what his political beliefs were. Randall has rebutted Morris in a review.

                    Please see: The Harry Price Website - Review of The Psychic Detective by John Randall in the SPR Journal

                    Of the numerous attacks on Price's reputation in this book, perhaps the nastiest is the assertion that he was involved with the Nazis and approved of their practices (p.183 et seq.). It is true that Price had many friends and acquaintances in Germany in the pre-war years, and Morris quotes a letter from Price to Dingwall, dated 29th July 1939, in which Price says he has drafted a letter to Hitler asking for permission to attend the Nuremburg Rally in August, adding "I should very much like to see this spectacle" (p.190). But there is no evidence that the Hitler letter was ever sent, or that Price ever met the dictator. Morris also reproduces a rather sentimental letter from Price to Gerda Walther, which he says he "discovered while researching this book" (p.191). In fact, the same letter was printed in toto by Paul Tabori as long ago as 1950 (Tabori, 1974, p.169), and he evidently saw nothing sinister in it. Tabori made the eminently sensible comment: "Price was no politician, and in the autumn of 1938 millions of Englishmen felt as he did."
                    Anyway I don't see the point in you citing Morris, he's a skeptic he doesn't believe in mediumship. He didn't dispute Price's research on the Duncan case like yourself have. I am not discussing the Duncan case any more, I have rebutted your theories before. There is no conspiracy. Check Simeon Edmunds book. Even if what you say is true about the mask like photographs you have not explained the photographs taken at Price's lab Photographs of Helen Duncan Seance Phenomena - Index very blatant fraud her ectoplasm was cloth and rubber gloves etc. No spiritualist has been able to respond to this. I am pretty sure deep down even you know this is fake but because of your belief system you are too scared to admit fraud. You should just admit fraud when it has occurred. Just because spiritualism is fraud doesn't mean an afterlife can't exist, I still believe in an afterlife, if spirits exist anyone should be able to see them, I don't buy into psychic powers.

                    Honestly, I am one of the very few people in the world to have read countless books on this subject, you may disagree with me but it can't be denied that I have put countless hours into researching the subject. I have not seen anyone else do as much as me. Apart from me, you are the only person I have seen who knows about this stuff and I have spoken to plenty of people in psychical research. I am not at war with you. Houdini and Doyle were friends and they opposed each other beliefs. I would like to know what you think about Whately Carington's word-association tests on Schneider and other mediums such as Gladys Osborne Leonard which firmly proved their alleged spirit controls were not spirits but fictitious personalities.

                    As for this forum and elsewhere, please don't be fooled by some of the impersonations of me, there are countless fake accounts. I am not claiming to be innocent I did troll this forum with a group of my college friends two years ago when I was young but a lot of this other stuff aint me. I'm not that bad. The admin knows my email and you can contact him if you wish if you want to chat, you can always email me but I am bored of this subject and really don't want to discuss it anymore. I appreciate your research and it's nice to see you still take a big interest in it, but this subject no longer interests me, I have given up researching it because of other interests. Good luck in your research. Feel free to try and rebut me on here, but I won't be further replying.

                    Last edited by Fodor; January 7th, 2014, 05:16 PM.


                    • #11
                      Fodor Fan, you seem to be lying ...

                      Yesterday Jacob (the forum moderator here) took the time to pass me a mail he received …it stated ….

                      Feel free to send Open Mind my email address forests@.....deleted
                      I would be interested in communicating with him, unfortunaylr he thinks I am a bit of a lunatic (he's half right) so he probably wouldn't contact me lol, but the offer is there. I have uploaded Price's famous cases to Wikipedia:
                      Since the editor of wikipedia topic is Fodor Fan, the email address 'forests........' implies you are Forests

                      On Michael Tymn's blog, 'Forests' stated ….

                      Open mind! What is your obession with this Fodor character? That is NOT me!!. It seems that user is a skeptic who is educated about anomalistic psychology. I would shake his hand if I knew him but his knowledge seems more than me on psychology, i am only interested in debunking spiritualism I found a study debunking psi but I don’t usually focus on psi. my beef is not with the psi believers, it is just with the spiritualists.
                      forests, Tue 5 Mar, 22:43
                      Are you confirming Forests and Fodor Fan are the same person? Or are you going to claim that a fake Forests wrote to Jacob and pretended to be Fodor Fan?

                      The post back in March also stated …
                      I am not “Darryl” or Exterminator, they were false accounts pretending to be me amongst countlss of others.

                      I was a member of the SPR and spent money on spiritualist books even got invited to a seance once,
                      forests, Tue 5 Mar, 22:43
                      However moderator(s) of this forum have previously stated that Darryl, Exterminator, Harry Price Fan are indeed the same posters as 'Forests' and all of you were banned.
                      Last edited by Open Mind; January 19th, 2014, 11:49 PM. Reason: Post made little kinder to Fodor


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Fodor View Post
                        Open Mind,

                        This is Fodor Fan from Wikipedia, previously a user who was banned on this forum.
                        ..... other impersonations like James that have occurred of me on this forum, I only have one ISP and the admin knows it.
                        How did you get here to this topic so quickly, this forum is now usually deserted, almost everyone moved to the new skeptiko forum .... this topic has only been up hours? Did your unwanted impersonators also notify you by email to come here?
                        Last edited by Open Mind; January 19th, 2014, 11:51 PM. Reason: Edit due to wrongly accusing Boblius of being Fodor


                        • #13
                          It's a shame you turned this thread into attacks against me. We could have had the biggest debate on this subject ever, you and me are probably the most educated on these topics. I am leaving this forum and my account will be closed, I am not these accounts you say I am. As I said feel free to rebut my evidence but I am not further responding. You wrecked the possibility of an interesting debate which is a shame considering the amount of time I put into my first post. Take care.
                          Last edited by Fodor; January 8th, 2014, 11:17 AM.


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Fodor View Post
                            See my first post to you on this thread which took me many hours, I firmly rebutted your incorrect information about Harry Price
                            No you didn't. If you want me to reply your long post line by line I can do so ... no problem whatsoever , I have more important things to do first, including sleep If you want I can even reply to Randall's article line by line, no problem.
                            Last edited by Open Mind; January 20th, 2014, 12:17 AM.


                            • #15
                              'Blastfighter' and 'Fodor Fan' within the same article you broke wikipedia rules.
                              No I didn't break the rules:

                              Wikipedia:Sock puppetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                              There are legitimate reasons for having alternative accounts. For me it was privacy reasons as I was posting from a public IP. If you connect your account with your main account re the alternative account template then there are no problems. Many admins on wiki have alternative accounts for safety reasons. I also shared an account with someone on that website which is not against the rules of you declare it.

                              You came here trying to contact me, not vice versa. You asked the moderator to get me to e-mail you, why?
                              I asked the admin to get an e-mail to you, to inform you I am not bob or these other accounts like David or James in the past you have claimed I am. I saw your stuff on Schneider and decided I could rebut your evidence in private. I was willing to privately communicate with you about it and settle any former problems with you, I thought you would take this offer but you publicly posted my email and decided to start posting things about me. I am not too bothered you have the lost the opportunity to know who I really am and the email has been deleted.

                              Now in a private mail you have the audacity to claim I am stalking you nonsense
                              Yes but you have stalked me, every few months on this forum you talk about me and claim various people are me, it's not just you doing that because you started it now Amos Doyle and other spiritualists are doing it and claiming I am someone called honest skeptic or Joe or David, if he had bothered to look closer he would see it is yet another a joke/impersonation account. I am not Joe Nickell.

                              Both you and Stevenson were pasting in IP addresses, towns and personal information about Wikipedia editors and claiming they were me or others (many of those posts were deleted). Most of your information was wrong so I don't really care but I have never done this to you or anyone. As it is I don't mind people posting Wikipedia accounts in (my edits are open), but IP addresses and towns, names etc is unacceptable. I have never understood what my Wikipedia edits has anything to do with you or why you are so obsessed with them, but for some reason they are always getting mentioned by you on various websites. If you want to mention them then I give you permission to mention them here. I am nothing to do with Wikipedia anymore. I have not been on that website in months. I can't help impersonation accounts. I have no sock puppets. You know which accounts are me.

                              readers should note a previous moderator of on these forums stated a poster called Eveshi had asked them who I was on behalf of Forests (i.e. you).
                              That's because someone was impersonating various members on this forum including me, eveshi and Arouet. Apparently he's stopped doing this now (I think he's moved on) but at the time I was convinced you might be him which Eveshi also suspected as your posts were similar (i.e. you claim all historical mediums were genuine). I believe someone else is now trying to cause trouble for me by impersonation (I believe it's a skeptic I have fallen out with, I'm pretty sure I know who it is but I can't post his name). But yes we were wrong you are not him. I apologise. If you want to rebut my evidence go ahead but I have asked the admin to close my account which he will do. Thanks.

                              If you want to discuss the history, no problem. You seem to be assuming because you write something I didn't previously know it
                              I no longer research the subject but all I know is this. Men who spent their lives researching the subject as much as 60 years like Harry Price, Tony Cornell, Hereward Carrington and Simeon Edmunds came to the conclusion the majority of mediums in spiritualism were fraudulent and they have documented many of these cases in their books, you never cite their data neither do other members on this forum. I chose to mention those names as they were all psychical researchers who actually believed in the paranormal, you can't accuse them of being skeptics. If you want a skeptic then read Joseph McCabe as he reveals there's no such thing as a medium who was investigated who was not caught in fraud.

                              I have not spent 60 years researching the subject and I doubt you have either. It is only ignorance if we discard their opinions on mediumship. If they spent 60 years studying mediumship and came to the conclusion the majority of mediums were bunk and they listed this evidence then we should accept this. There is not a single thread on this forum about fraud in mediumship. Not a single post apart from mine admitting mediums were caught in fraud, you never see posts on this forum exposing William Eglinton, D. D. Home, Eusapia Palladino or Henry Slade. You accuse me of being biased but you never report the fraud, you keep claiming every medium is genuine. If you want to impress me then perhaps from now on start admitting cases of fraud instead of denying them. If you want to go through each historical medium and rebut the evidence on Wikipedia and post it then go ahead. Good luck

                              I would like to know which mediums you believe were fake, you never post this but deep down you must know many were fraudulent. See my first post again on this thread and I like to see a response from you from all that evidence I gave. I give you permission to quote from Wikipedia, if you want to rebut all the evidence users uploaded there and post on in then I would be interested but I won't be about but it would be an interesting project considering you claim the skeptics have got it all wrong:


                              Here's the template listing believers and skeptics in spiritualism:


                              Have fun.

                              As Jacob hasn't deleted my account, I have changed my password so I can't log back in, I don't want to be on this website as this has caused problems for me in the past. Nobody is at war we should just laugh at this. I have nothing against you or anyone on this forum. I have left psychical research. We won't ever be in communication again but feel free to cite Wikipedia if you want to debunk evidence on mediumship, this thread will be left open. As I said before even if you believe I am wrong you can't deny I have spent much time researching the topic, I can't be dismissed so easily. We should get on with each other my intention is not to argue with people. I apologise for some of my posts to you in the past. I have appreciated some of your research and actually agreed with you on things, perhaps you can do the same with some of mine. Regards.
                              Last edited by Fodor; January 8th, 2014, 11:20 AM. Reason: no further responses from me