Enfield Poltergeist case offers new proof of

[Still Waters]

NEW scientific research which uses evidence from the world famous Enfield Poltergeist case has come a step closer to proving conclusively the existence of paranormal activity.

Research published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research has concluded that noises recorded during poltergeist activity at a house in Green Street in the late 1970s were unlikely to have been caused by normal human activity.

The recordings, made between 1977 and 1978, captured a variety of unexplained occurrences that plagued a mother and her children - including banging on walls and moving furniture.

During the year of disturbances, incidents of levitation and appearances of apparitions were also reported.

The events were witnessed by the family, along with local police officers, neighbours and journalists, receiving global media attention.

The recordings have for the first time been analysed in detail and the sounds of knocking on walls and furniture compared to the same sounds recreated under scientific conditions. The results showed the unexplained noises in Enfield did not produce normal sound wave patterns.

Read more...

[Gummug]

Aha! Agent Mulder should see this! I mean the OP's op...

[MysticStrummer]

I never get tired of reading about the Enfield case.

[JohnSage]

Believers will always believe and skeptics will always doubt. I think that the one thing this study will conclusively proof is that skeptics are just as prone to dismiss evidence as substancial as this, as believers are to dismiss rational explainations for their paranormal experiences. While I would still love to see an in depth explanation into how this research was conducted and the series of "human" causes that were ruled out and why, in my opinion at this point someone who is truly only interested in the truth must concede that its at least "possible" that such phenomenon exist.

[Agent. Mulder]

Aha! Agent Mulder should see this! I mean the OP's op...

[Agent. Mulder]

"Asked whether he believed such activity could ever return to the Enfield house, Mr Playfair said: “It would be extremely unlikely. When the family went away on holiday I stayed in the house on my own, very much hoping something would happen - but not a squeak. I tried knocking and shouting at the thing, but nothing.”

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/8361618.Enfield_Poltergeist_case_offers_new_proof_of_paranormal/

I dunno....

Im also curious as to what they distinguish as "did not produce normal sound wave patterns"

[coldethyl]

Never understood why they only took pictures and not video in there. Video cameras were readily available then. Makes little sense to me.

[Ticci]

I just finished reading The Demonologist, about Ed and Lorraine Warren. They say the Enfield case was diabolical possession.

[Agent. Mulder]

I just finished reading The Demonologist, about Ed and Lorraine Warren. They say the Enfield case was diabolical possession.

How does that differ from regular possession?

[Grey Britain]

this case has always interested me but its true what coldethyl posted why they did not use video to back up the case is beyond me because they used reporters as witnesses to the case so surely they would want as much evidence as possible

[Belial]

Listen.

[Agent. Mulder]

Those still pics make her look wasted, or on an acid trip.

[Grey Britain]

Listen.

honestly i dont think the audio proves much because its easy for alot of people to talk in a forced deep voice

[Belial]

Totally agree, thats why i posted the footage, and new 'science' is saying that this does carry evidence of being NOT from a human throat? But how does science know the difference between reality and the dead talking?

[Grey Britain]

Totally agree, thats why i posted the footage, and new 'science' is saying that this does carry evidence of being NOT from a human throat? But how does science know the difference between reality and the dead talking?

oh i see, thats kinda crazy that they base their evidence on that

[affinity106]

Is there anything written explaining why the scientific researches think that the voice could come from non-human origins? I mean, it's all very well saying "we believe there is evidence that this recording isn't from a humans voice box" but there must be reasons for them thinking this. I assume the "evidence" is the sound waves recorded not matching up to the waves recorded by human voice or something along those lines.

[RNDphase]

The Enfield case is my favourite and well as the most interesting cases I have heard of. I'm sure that some of the evidence may have been faked as there was a lot of pressure placed on the children/ghost to perform, that said most of the witness statements seem very credible.

Without a frame of reference to compare any evidence too, main stream thinking will always shoot it down, much like the flat earth believers used to.

Sometimes I do feel that the (s)sceptic and ®esearcher conversations go a bit like this.

®I have just come in from the rain and my hair is wet.

(s)People's hair gets wet in the shower.

®So you're saying rain didn’t fall from the sky and wet me?

(s)No, just people's hair gets wet in the shower.

®How about when my friend claimed to have gone swimming?

(s)People's hair gets wet in the shower.

®so when my friend dived into the pool his hair was wet because?

(s)it can be shown without a shadow of a doubt that people's hair gets wet in the shower.

®What happens if somebody showering uses a shower cap?

(s)The know laws of physics state that peoples hair gets wet when showering.

Which I have to add, is still reasonable argument by the sceptic when compare to my arguments a couple of beers in.

[RNDphase]

Is there anything written explaining why the scientific researches think that the voice could come from non-human origins? I mean, it's all very well saying "we believe there is evidence that this recording isn't from a humans voice box" but there must be reasons for them thinking this. I assume the "evidence" is the sound waves recorded not matching up to the waves recorded by human voice or something along those lines.

Maurice Grosse spoke to speech therapists who suspected that the voice was not coming from Janet's usual vocal chord equipment but by the second set of vocal chords all people have. Actors can be trained to speak using these 'false chords' to produce a deep gravely voice, however it can be a painful process. This theory was soon backed up by a recording of "the voice" on a laryngograph (registers patterns made by frequency waves as they pass through the larynx). However to keep up this 'gravely' voice for hours on end would naturally have consequences on Janet's normal voice. But Janet's voice did not seem to be affected

[affinity106]

Maurice Grosse spoke to speech therapists who suspected that the voice was not coming from Janet's usual vocal chord equipment but by the second set of vocal chords all people have. Actors can be trained to speak using these 'false chords' to produce a deep gravely voice, however it can be a painful process. This theory was soon backed up by a recording of "the voice" on a laryngograph (registers patterns made by frequency waves as they pass through the larynx). However to keep up this 'gravely' voice for hours on end would naturally have consequences on Janet's normal voice. But Janet's voice did not seem to be affected

Ah, that makes sense, although there is clearly still the possibility that it is hoaxed. I've always been very skeptical of 'demonic possession' (being an atheist/agnostic (I'm aware this is contradictory but I see myself more as an 'open atheist') I have never really believed in the Catholic church's 'exorcism' cases) but if there was indeed scientific evidence to show otherwise that would be mind blowing.

I hope more time is spent researching this sort of phenomenon in this and future cases.

[RNDphase]

Ah, that makes sense, although there is clearly still the possibility that it is hoaxed. I've always been very skeptical of 'demonic possession' (being an atheist/agnostic (I'm aware this is contradictory but I see myself more as an 'open atheist') I have never really believed in the Catholic church's 'exorcism' cases) but if there was indeed scientific evidence to show otherwise that would be mind blowing.

You’re right that this and most evidence can be hoaxed. I am hugely sceptical myself and believe that the vast majority of possessions are nothing more than schizophrenia or similar illnesses.

What keeps my mind open, is the money being pumped into quantum physics, where not only can it explain paranormal effects but it makes even the biggest paranormal claims look insignificant next to some quantum claims.