Polterwurst
Paranormal Adept
With the sheer overwhelming amount of trickery and mischievousness by the alleged focus persons which eventually shows up in most of these cases, it's hard to believe there is anything else going on but hoaxes. Maybe we should just agree on that and move on.
We shouldn't get obsessed with these cases, either wanting to prove there is something to them or that they are all bogus. You have to step away from them frequently (at least I have to), and put it all into perspective.
A good opportunity for doing just that just presented itself to me. I had been wondering for a while, what or who on earth this "Gef" character was that you had been talking about. I'd never heard of him. Just now, I found out in this video...
I have to say that it made my day. I had a really good laugh. It's obvious that these people had a little houseguest (probably a marten or ferret, not a mongoose, we should ask @manxman about what's more likely), which would explain the sounds in the walls, up to the baby-like gurgling. And then the girl, who must have been bored out of her wits, probably started to "lend it her voice" (ventriloquize), just to make things a little more interesting around there. No poltergeist here, I guess, just a prank that got really hilariously out of proportions.
As for the Tina Resch case, I had heard about it in the 80s and was quite convinced that it was just what Randi was saying, a hoax. So I never investigated further. But of course, back then I hadn't had what to me was quite convincing evidence of "survival of consciousness", and I hadn't heard about the credible third-party witnesses in other cases (like Rosenheim or Lindley Street), which I had also already dismissed.
But still, from the few facts I know, it seems that there are no credible third-party-witnesses in the Tina Resch case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that there were no events where someone else outside the family was looking on, who then went to see if it could have been manipulated and couldn't come up with an explanation. Which would probably mean that she hoaxed all of the events.
I hadn't heard of William G. Roll's involvement either. If it's true that he pronounced the case genuine without having really good evidence, that would be an obvious failure to adhere to his own principle of investigating possible psychological problems and the possibility of hoaxes first, and would make his whole work questionable. It seems especially worrying that he co-authored that book which indicated that she might have been innocent of the death of her daughter. That opens a can of worms, or rather a Pandora's box I'll get to in a minute.
What I think might have happened is, if a researcher getsso convinced of poltergeist cases being genuine, because of having experienced quite a few of them without being able to find natural causes, he or she suddenly can't exclude any possibilites any more and is in danger of not keeping a skeptical mind and jumping to conclusions with later cases.
This happened to Hans Bender, also in the 80s, although on a less serious note. There had been a series of allegedly Poltergeist-like activity in a dentist's surgery, mainly a "direct voice" talking to and cursing at people from what seemed to be the sinks and toilets of the place. The "ghost" seems to have made the impression that it was "in love with" and going after the "focus person", a young female apprentice. The case became infamous through the yellow press, who called the alleged ghost "the Chopper".
Asked for his opinion, Bender, without having been to the place, said that it might be genuine. By then, he had seen what he probably thought of as irrefutible evidence, which I guess led him to jump to conclusions. Which might have been what happened to Roll in the Tina Resch case.
When the female apprentice subsequently was caught ventriloquizing the voice by a police investigator who was using a mirror to watch her, the whole thing of course backfired on Bender, as you would expect.
It was said that the girl had hoaxed the whole thing and that the dentist himself and his wife had been in on it. There was a trial and a substantial fine for the accused. Although doubts turn up now and then, if this might not have been genuine after all, I'd say it's highly probable that this was indeed nothing but a hoax. There have been demonstrably false accusations in other cases (especially Rosenheim), but I'm personally quite convinced that the fine was justified.
Although paranormal researchers say that "direct voices" are a genuine phenomenon, I have never heard of one that was so talkative. And when it comes to talking cats, mongooses and toilet sinks, my BS meter goes off the marks.
I've been thinking quite a bit about hat. That's the Pandora's box I mentioned, which I hesitate to open.
I do think now that consciousness or spirit, if you like, exists and can be independent of a body.
But does that mean I have to consider angels and demons, elementals, fairies and djinn and whatnot? Where would that end?
Do I have to look at the possibility that every case of schizophrenia, paranoia, psychosis etc. is actually possession? People being harassed and talked into things by evil spirits? Do I even want to consider that a serial killer who claims that a demionic voice talked him into killing his victims, has a right to be heard on that?
No, absolutely not.
I don't think that discarnate cnsciousness, if it exists and can actually interact, has any kind of power over people. That's why I'm also quite cautious with Poltergeist cases, although the many credible witnesses seem to indicate that something out of the ordinary is indeed going on.
I don't think demons are a reality, at least in the Christian, purely evil-evil sense. I guess originally, with the ancient greeks, the word just meant spirits, and those could be malevolent, indifferent or even well-meaning, often depending on their mood). Just as there is an incredible range of behaviours, mindsets and outlooks in "incarnated" consciousness, there's probably as many in the discarnate variety.
There is the claim of many psychic mediums, that things like Poltergeists or hauntings are caused by consciousness that, after death, refuses to "go into the light" and leave "our realm" entirely. Some of them allegedly feel that what they had done around here, could lead to them being condemned to hell, and that's why they stay. And when they do, they are probably not in a good mood.
I guess, if you equate "the light" in this allegedly true situation with what some religions call "god", that means these poor suckers would be "spirits that willfully choose to be far from god", which to many theologians probably would technically be the definition of a demon. Maybe in that sense they could be called that. But of course, that is assuming that this is not all just another form of mythology which evolved as an alternative to traditional religon.
We shouldn't get obsessed with these cases, either wanting to prove there is something to them or that they are all bogus. You have to step away from them frequently (at least I have to), and put it all into perspective.
A good opportunity for doing just that just presented itself to me. I had been wondering for a while, what or who on earth this "Gef" character was that you had been talking about. I'd never heard of him. Just now, I found out in this video...
I have to say that it made my day. I had a really good laugh. It's obvious that these people had a little houseguest (probably a marten or ferret, not a mongoose, we should ask @manxman about what's more likely), which would explain the sounds in the walls, up to the baby-like gurgling. And then the girl, who must have been bored out of her wits, probably started to "lend it her voice" (ventriloquize), just to make things a little more interesting around there. No poltergeist here, I guess, just a prank that got really hilariously out of proportions.
As for the Tina Resch case, I had heard about it in the 80s and was quite convinced that it was just what Randi was saying, a hoax. So I never investigated further. But of course, back then I hadn't had what to me was quite convincing evidence of "survival of consciousness", and I hadn't heard about the credible third-party witnesses in other cases (like Rosenheim or Lindley Street), which I had also already dismissed.
But still, from the few facts I know, it seems that there are no credible third-party-witnesses in the Tina Resch case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that there were no events where someone else outside the family was looking on, who then went to see if it could have been manipulated and couldn't come up with an explanation. Which would probably mean that she hoaxed all of the events.
I hadn't heard of William G. Roll's involvement either. If it's true that he pronounced the case genuine without having really good evidence, that would be an obvious failure to adhere to his own principle of investigating possible psychological problems and the possibility of hoaxes first, and would make his whole work questionable. It seems especially worrying that he co-authored that book which indicated that she might have been innocent of the death of her daughter. That opens a can of worms, or rather a Pandora's box I'll get to in a minute.
What I think might have happened is, if a researcher getsso convinced of poltergeist cases being genuine, because of having experienced quite a few of them without being able to find natural causes, he or she suddenly can't exclude any possibilites any more and is in danger of not keeping a skeptical mind and jumping to conclusions with later cases.
This happened to Hans Bender, also in the 80s, although on a less serious note. There had been a series of allegedly Poltergeist-like activity in a dentist's surgery, mainly a "direct voice" talking to and cursing at people from what seemed to be the sinks and toilets of the place. The "ghost" seems to have made the impression that it was "in love with" and going after the "focus person", a young female apprentice. The case became infamous through the yellow press, who called the alleged ghost "the Chopper".
Asked for his opinion, Bender, without having been to the place, said that it might be genuine. By then, he had seen what he probably thought of as irrefutible evidence, which I guess led him to jump to conclusions. Which might have been what happened to Roll in the Tina Resch case.
When the female apprentice subsequently was caught ventriloquizing the voice by a police investigator who was using a mirror to watch her, the whole thing of course backfired on Bender, as you would expect.
It was said that the girl had hoaxed the whole thing and that the dentist himself and his wife had been in on it. There was a trial and a substantial fine for the accused. Although doubts turn up now and then, if this might not have been genuine after all, I'd say it's highly probable that this was indeed nothing but a hoax. There have been demonstrably false accusations in other cases (especially Rosenheim), but I'm personally quite convinced that the fine was justified.
Although paranormal researchers say that "direct voices" are a genuine phenomenon, I have never heard of one that was so talkative. And when it comes to talking cats, mongooses and toilet sinks, my BS meter goes off the marks.
I've been thinking quite a bit about hat. That's the Pandora's box I mentioned, which I hesitate to open.
I do think now that consciousness or spirit, if you like, exists and can be independent of a body.
But does that mean I have to consider angels and demons, elementals, fairies and djinn and whatnot? Where would that end?
Do I have to look at the possibility that every case of schizophrenia, paranoia, psychosis etc. is actually possession? People being harassed and talked into things by evil spirits? Do I even want to consider that a serial killer who claims that a demionic voice talked him into killing his victims, has a right to be heard on that?
No, absolutely not.
I don't think that discarnate cnsciousness, if it exists and can actually interact, has any kind of power over people. That's why I'm also quite cautious with Poltergeist cases, although the many credible witnesses seem to indicate that something out of the ordinary is indeed going on.
I don't think demons are a reality, at least in the Christian, purely evil-evil sense. I guess originally, with the ancient greeks, the word just meant spirits, and those could be malevolent, indifferent or even well-meaning, often depending on their mood). Just as there is an incredible range of behaviours, mindsets and outlooks in "incarnated" consciousness, there's probably as many in the discarnate variety.
There is the claim of many psychic mediums, that things like Poltergeists or hauntings are caused by consciousness that, after death, refuses to "go into the light" and leave "our realm" entirely. Some of them allegedly feel that what they had done around here, could lead to them being condemned to hell, and that's why they stay. And when they do, they are probably not in a good mood.
I guess, if you equate "the light" in this allegedly true situation with what some religions call "god", that means these poor suckers would be "spirits that willfully choose to be far from god", which to many theologians probably would technically be the definition of a demon. Maybe in that sense they could be called that. But of course, that is assuming that this is not all just another form of mythology which evolved as an alternative to traditional religon.
Last edited:
