Header 1

Our future, our universe, and other weighty topics


Friday, September 19, 2025

When Apparitions Get Multiple Witnesses

Let us look at some cases of apparitions seen by more than one witness. 

Below is a report of several workers seeing an apparition of a worker who recently died at their work site:

ghost of co-worker

You can read the account here:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86075298/1923-09-07/ed-1/seq-7/

Below is another report of several workers seeing an apparition of a worker who recently died at their work site:

ghost seen by more than one

You can read the account here:


Here is a newspaper account of an apparition seen by two different witnesses, both of which claimed to have seen the apparition of Fred F. Lange. There is a strange additional detail of 3 photos taken of Lange's corpse, which all come up blank. 


You can read the account here:


Here is another newspaper account of an apparition seen by two different witnesses:

ghost seen by two

You can read the account here:


Below we read of an apparition of a Colonel Brice. In the account a professor says he saw the apparition once, and that an associate saw the apparition three times. The professor says the apparition was transparent, and walked through the professor's bed.


ghost seen by more than one

You can read the account here:


Below is a rather chilling story of multiple witnesses seeing an apparition, not just once but multiple times, apparently:

haunted house

Below is an account of an apparition seen by six witnesses, including an ex-Congressman:

six men see ghost

You can read the account here:


Below is another case of an apparition reportedly seen by multiple witnesses:

ghost seen by many

You can read the account here:

Below we have a very dramatic account of an apparition witnessed by a very sick child's father and the child's stepmother. The apparition reportedly had an appearance matching that of the child's deceased mother. 

ghost of mother

You can read the account here:


Below is a quote from a scholarly article, in which the author quotes an account he heard on TV. The witness claims that he and five other people saw an apparition corresponding to a person who was at the time close to death. It's one of the rare cases of an apparition of the living, which tend to occur when the person matching the apparition is having a close brush with death. 

"In recently watching the Jonathan Ross show again on the 29th October, quite unexpectedly, another guest and poet, Benjamin Zephaniah, presented another experience for all to hear. Following asking about attitudes towards Halloween, Ross, already primed with information on his guests, asks Zephaniah, 'am I right in thinking that you had a sort of supernatural experience once?' Drifting into thought and recollection, he replied, 'Yes, I had a very, very weird experience, and interestingly y’know, a lot of these experiences happen in the night when there’s shadows y’know and stuff like that, but this happened in broad daylight. Me, and five other people, were in a house in Birmingham. We were waiting for cousin to come home. She walked in [through] the front door, through the front room, and out the backdoor. And we went to see her, and she wasn’t there.'  The other guests on Ross’s show clearly shocked with stunned reactions at this point. He continues, 'And we all saw her. Later on that day, we found out that she’d been hit by a car, died for about five minutes or whatever it is, and came back to life [Ross lets out a ‘wow’ with his eye fixated on Zephaniah], and it wasn’t just me, like I said there were five others who witnessed it… And I’m not really one of those people that believes in that stuff, I’m into science y’know, but I also understand that there is stuff that we can’t prove.' Ross remarks that normally he would dismiss that sort of thing, and yet, it was hard to with Zephaniah’s account as it sounds so convincing, especially as sober and level headed gentleman." 

In the 1914 news account below, we have quite a few prisoners in the same jail claiming to see the same apparition, an apparition of John F. Jones, who hanged himself in the same jail in 1896. We read of nine prisoners pleading guilty, and the article suggests that more than a dozen confessed because of the apparition, saying, "Investigations of the reasons brought out the story of the 'ghost' and also the remarkable fact that in the past ten years twenty murderers had made confessions of guilt urged on by the same cause." 

ghost seen by more than one

You can read the account here:


The account here is quite the "haunted house" account. There are many details of people seeing spooky things in the house. We hear that a Mr. and Mrs. Siegal several times saw a ghost walk through their living room. But the second-hand nature of the account means it is not first-class evidence of an apparition. 

On page 136 of the document here, we read that some paranormal investigators said they saw an apparition of a man holding a baby. 

In a previous post I briefly mentioned the case of Mary Goffe, writing only this:

"The case of Mary Goffe was one of the earliest reports of an apparition of a living person.  On her death bed in 1691, Mary Goffe claimed that she had seen her children who had been entrusted to the care of a nurse far away. She claimed 'I was with them last night, when I was asleep.'  The nurse swore that she saw Mary Goffe appear at two o'clock, and that she visited the children. The nurse said, 'If I ever saw her in all my life, I saw her on this night.' "

My discussion was rather lacking, in that it did not refer to the original source material, which should always be cited whenever possible.  I have since found the original version of this account. It is on page 147 of the book The Certainty of the World of Spirits, published in 1691. On page 147, and the next few pages, we have the original account, which occurs in the form of a letter written by Reverend Thomas Tilson, dated July 6, 1691. I would quote the whole account exactly as it appears in its original form, except that it would be hard to read in the original because of all the antiquated typography in which the letter "s" is printed as "f." 

But luckily the 1691 letter from Thomas Tilson  is quoted exactly in a 1929 facsimile in the January 12, 1929 edition of the journal Light. Here is the account as quoted in that edition, which matches the original text:

"Mary, the wife of John Goffe, of Rochester, being afflicted with a long illness, removed to her father’s house, at West Mulling, which is about nine miles distant from her own; there she died, June 4th, 1691. The day before her departure, she grew impatiently desirous to see her two children, whom she had left at home, to the care of a nurse. She prayed her husband to hire a horse, for she must go home, and die with her children. When they persuaded her to the contrary, telling her she was not fit to be taken out of her bed, nor able to sit on horseback, she entreated them however to try....The next day this dying woman told her mother, that she had been at home with her children. 'That is impossible'  said the mother, ' for you have been here in bed all the while.'  'Yes'  replied the other, 'but I was with them last night when I was asleep.' 

The nurse at Rochester, Widow Alexander by name, affirms and says, she will take her oath of it before a magistrate, and receive the sacrament upon it, that a little before two o’clock that morning, she saw the likeness of the said Mary Goffe come out of the next chamber (where the elder child lay in a bed by itself, the door being left open) and stood by her bed-side for about a quarter of an hour : the younger child was there lying by her; her eyes moved and her mouth went, but she said nothing. The nurse, moreover, says that she was perfectly awake; it was then day-light, being one of the longest days in the year. She sat up in her bed, and looked steadfastly upon the apparition; at that time she heard the bridge clock strike two, and awhile after said,  'In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, what art thou?'  Thereupon the appearance removed, and went away; she slipped on her clothes and followed, but what became of it she cannot tell. Then, and not before, she began to be grievously affrighted, and went out of doors and walked upon the wharf (the house is just by the riverside) for some hours, only going in now and then to look at the children. At five o’clock she went to a neighbour’s house, and knocked at the door, but they would not rise; at six she went again, then they arose and let her in. She related to them all that had passed; they would persuade her she was mistaken, or dreamt: but she confidently affirmed, ' If ever I saw her in all my life, I saw her this night.' One of those to whom she made the relation (Mary, the wife of J. Sweet) had a messenger who came from Mulling that forenoon, to let her know her neighbour Groffe was dying,-and desired to speak with her; she went over the same day, and found her just departing. The mother, amongst other discourse, related to her how much her daughter had longed to see her children and said she had seen them. This brought to Mrs. Sweet’s mind, what the nurse had told her that morning, for till then, she had not thought fit to mention it, but disguised it, rather as the woman’s disturbed imagination. 

The substance of this, I had related to me by John Carpenter, the father of the deceased, next day after the burial. July 2nd, I fully discoursed the matter with the nurse, and two neighbours, to whose house she went that morning. Two days after, 1 had it from the mother, the minister that was with her in the even, and the woman who sat up with her last that night: they all agree in the same story, and every one helps to strengthen the other’s testimony. They all appear to be sober intelligent persons, far enough off from designing to impose a cheat upon the world, or to manage a lie, and what temptation they should lie under for so doing, I cannot conceive." --
 Thomas Tilson. Minister of Aylesworth, near Maidstone in Kent, Aylesford, July 6, 1691

We have here high-quality evidence for the reality of this astonishing appearance of an apparition of a dying person. A very important fact is that the testimony has been written down within about a month after the claimed events, with the writer being someone who interviewed most of the relevant witnesses, including the nurse who claimed to see the apparition. According to the account, both the nurse and one of Mary Goffe's children saw the apparition, so we may classify this case as one of the cases of an apparition seen by more than one. 

A Google search for "Soyuz 7 angels" produces quite a few web pages claiming that astronauts on the Soyuz 7 mission of the Soviet Union in 1969 saw apparitions of angels or mysterious beings outside of their space station.  I have been unable to yet track down the original source of this account, or any firsthand testimony from any of these astronauts. So I don't know whether this claim is reliable. 

For other cases of apparitions seen by multiple witnesses, see my posts below:

Wednesday, September 17, 2025

Science Sites Mislead Us, Trying to Persuade Us That Innovative Visible Evolution Can Work Fast

The dogmas of materialism are spread these days largely by a huge internet-based information infrastructure that is scattered across the globe. That infrastructure gives us a mixture of news, facts, hype, speculation, data, dogma and BS, with enough profitable clickbait and corporate PR for the infrastructure to mostly pay for itself. 

science propaganda

One of the web sites involved in pushing materialist propaganda is the ad-heavy site www.livescience.com, where we mostly get true headlines, but often get science headlines that simply are not true, typically written by writers who are not scientists. To give some examples:

  • On the Livescience site we had the utterly untrue headline "'Building blocks of life' discovered on Mars in 10 different rock samples." The story discusses some observations of biologically irrelevant chemicals on Mars, none of which are ingredients of life or building blocks on life.  
  • story at the LiveScience site was entitled " 'This might be the seeds of life': Organic matter found on asteroid Ryugu could explain where life on Earth came from." The story was misleading for several reasons: (1) Scientists do not believe that life ever existed on the asteroid  Ryugu or on any other asteroid. (2) There is no scientific concept of any such thing as a "seed of life," in the sense of something causing life to arise from non-life (with the exception of plant seeds, and plant seeds were not found on Ryugu).  (3) No actual components of life were found on the asteroid Ryugu, and most organic molecules are not components of life. 
  • Another story at the LiveScience site referred to a claimed discovery of the simplest amino acid (uracil) on an asteroid, in the faintest trace amount of only 13 parts per billion. The headline at the LiveScience site made the very untrue claim that this "could explain the origin of life." Living things require twenty types of amino acids, which must be massively arranged in very specially ordered arrangements to make many types of the very hard-to-achieve molecules called proteins.  The discovery of one type of amino acid in the faintest trace amounts no more explains the origin of life than the discovery of a twig on the ground (making the letter "I") explains the origin of books consisting of vey much well-constructed prose. 

  • Another article on the LiveScience site was devoted to selling the groundless idea that there is a "dark mirror" universe inside ours. 

  • Another article on the LiveScience site had the nutty title "The 1st life in the universe could have formed seconds after the Big Bang."  Anyone familiar with the incredibly high temperatures and density at such a time (preventing all chemistry and even the existence of atoms) should understand how crazy such a claim is. 

  • Another article on the LiveScience site had the phony title "Here's what we learned about aliens in 2020," a reference to extraterrestrials. Of course, we did not learn anything about extraterrestrials in that year. 

  • Another article on the LiveScience site had the phony title "These weird lumps of 'inflatons' could be the very first structures in the universe."  We saw a visual of some strange structure that looked like a planetary nebula. The caption read, "Shown here, one of the dense clumps of inflatons that emerged during the inflation phase of the Big Bang, in the infant universe."  The caption led the reader to believe he was looking at some photo of something in space.  But the photo was not a photo of anything observed in space.  It was merely a photo of some junk generated by an entirely speculative computer program. No actual "inflatons" have ever been observed, and the program was based on one of the innumerable speculative models of the unproven cosmic inflation theory.

  • The Livescience site had an article with the groundless headline "The brain stores at least 3 copies of every memory." Human beings recall things, but no scientist has ever discovered even one memory in a brain.  The study the article referred to was a very bad example of Questionable Research Practices.

Livescience.com is a for-profit web site with the main purpose of generating profits for the media company that owns it. 

Let us look at a recent story on the Livescience site that was a kind of textbook example of the type of misleading statements found in Darwinist literature. We have an article entitled "How fast does evolution happen?"  Below the title is a subtitle stating this: "Measuring the pace of evolution is tricky, but some species can evolve as quickly as a few generations."  

Right off the bat, we are being tricked.  The average person reading that subtitle will think that the article will show that a new type of species can originate within a few generations.  But when you carefully consider the exact wording,  you should  realize no such claim is being unambiguously made.  The word "evolution" is a word of almost infinite flexibility, which can mean 101 different things.  So when stating "some species can evolve as quickly as a few generations" an author might merely mean that some type of change -- perhaps some very trivial and not even visible change -- can occur in a species over such a time span.  

Darwinists are constantly exploiting the ambiguity and flexibility of the term "evolution."  The writers of Darwinist literature are constantly making statements which can be interpreted in many very different ways.  They often play a game of making a statement that means little interpreted in one way, but means something gigantic when interpreted in another way.  You might call this a game of "refer to something that may be a pebble or a mountain, and hope the reader  interprets that as if I meant a mountain." 

The Livescience article gives us this attempt to give an example of evolution, stating "In the famous example of Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands, different species evolved different beak shapes and sizes within a few decades to specialize in feeding on different types of nuts and insects." 
The claim that observations of differences in finches sparked Darwin's theory is incorrect. The differences between the finches was not even mentioned in The Origin of Species. On page 134 of his biography of Darwin, A.N. Wilson states the following:

"Peter and Rosemary Grant, evolutionary biologists from Harvard University, spent twenty-five summers studying these birds....They revealed that the beak changes were reversible -- this is hardly 'evolution.'  Beaks adapted from season to season, depending on whether droughts left large, tough seeds, or heavy rainfall resulted in smaller, softer seeds."

We then have a textbook example of one of the leading deceptions of Darwinist literature, the deception of trying to pass off examples of human-directed artificial selection as examples showing the power of natural, unguided evolution. We read this:

"By the early to mid-20th century, scientists realized that evolution can happen much more quickly than Darwin ever thought by using the theory of natural selection to make crops more palatable in as few as seven years and domesticate dogs over a few generations. 'We made evolution happen,' Bonnet told Live Science. 'We could see that the change happening at this scale of a few generations (can) be quite dramatic.' "

Since these references are to human-directed artificial selection, you should not be using the term "evolution" to refer to them, and you should not be citing such things as examples showing the power of natural evolution.  

We then have some examples that do nothing to show any power of natural evolution to create any type of innovations or structural improvements in organisms. We read this:

"To find out, Bonnet and an international team of researchers analyzed decades of genetic data for 19 bird and mammal species. They found that the rate of adaptive evolution was two to four times faster than previous estimates. More specifically, each generation increased its survival and reproduction by 18.5%, on average, under completely stable conditions. This means that if survival and reproduction decreased by a third, adaptive evolution would help a population recover in three to seven generations. Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) evolved horns that were 0.7 inches (2 centimeters) shorter than before over 20 years, or three generations, because hunters had targeted those with larger horns. Snow voles (Chionomys nivalis) shrank by up to 0.1 ounces (3 grams) over 10 years, or eight generations, probably because of changes in snowfall."

None of the statements above refer to any type of innovative evolution.  We have a link to a scientific paper that does not mention any type of innovative evolution.  All that has gone on is that the authors have analyzed the population of 19 species scattered around the world (mostly birds), and claimed that these 19 species are doing fairly well in improving the size of their population. But why were these 19 species chosen among the 32,000 species whose population is  been tracked (according to the Living Planet Index)? The authors make no claim to have made a random selection of 19 species. Nor did they pre-register a group of species before analyzing data.  So we should suspect that they chose a group of species that would support the thesis they were trying to advance. No evidence of a power of evolution has been given. 

We then have a statement by an evolutionary biologist that "evolution is always occurring," but such a statement is true only about evolution with the tiniest of small e's (gene pool variation), not innovative evolution.  There is no evidence that visible innovative evolution is occurring anywhere in the world. We have the profoundly misleading statement quoted below:

" ' Rates of evolution can be fantastically fast because of that constant environmental change,' Michael Benton, a vertebrate paleontologist at the University of Bristol, told Live Science. But 'the shorter the time scale, the faster the rate, and this is after you have corrected for time,' he added."

Whatever is being referred to here, it is not innovative evolution in the sense of the origin of new types of proteins, the origin of new types of cells,  the origin of new types of visible body structures, or the origin of new species very different from any previous species. No such things have been observed by humans studying nature.  So making claims like the ones quoted above are profoundly misleading. 

We then have in the LiveScience article this laughably weak bit of evidence:

"Stroud and his colleagues at the University of Miami are now using nonnative green iguanas as a case study for rapid evolution. The warm-adapted lizards are known to freeze and fall out of trees during Miami's infrequent cold snaps. 'What we saw is that some die, but some survive — and the ones that survive can actually tolerate colder temperatures than the ones we measured before,'  Stroud said. 'So it suggests that evolution might be happening.' "

Evolution might be happening? A look at the paper reveals the reason for Stroud's hesitance here. The sample sizes are so small (only about a dozen animals per species) that no robust evidence has been provided that there has been any improvement in the ability of iguanas to survive in the cold. 

Then the LiveScience article gives us this little attempt to provide evidence of the power of evolution to produce rapid results: " In the Triassic period (251.9 million to 201.3 million years ago), after the Permian extinction, large marine reptiles called ichthyosaurs evolved to be gigantic in less than 3 million years — more quickly than whales did — because they became the ocean's top predators."  Endless similar examples could be provided of cases in which some type of dramatic innovation seems to suddenly appear in the fossil record, with little or no record of transitional intermediate forms. But no such cases prove any evidence of the power of innovative evolution or rapid evolution. To the contrary, such cases undermine the claims of Darwinists. The more rapidly things appear in the fossil record, the less credible are Darwinist claims of such things appearing because of Darwinian evolution, which cannot credibly explain complex biological innovations occurring over any time scale, and fails particularly bad in trying to explain dramatic biological innovations occurring over rapid timescales. 

The person who made the previous misleading statement that "rates of evolution can be fantastically fast" was Michael Benton, who is not a biologist, but a paleontologist, a guy who studies fossils. The Livescience article ends with him making an equally misleading statement by saying, "Maybe the answer is that everything is capable of enormously crazy fast evolution, if it has to." Pretty much the only way you could get such an idea is by studying bones,  for the fossil record gives us endless examples of dramatic biological innovations seemingly occurring "out of nowhere." Such cases contradict Darwinist biology, which predict that no such things should ever happen.  The more you study biology and the vast level of organization required for biological innovations, the more you will dismiss the possibility of unguided processes such as Darwinian evolution producing such results.  

failure of Darwinist explanations

Bone guys like Benton usually fail to study the mountainous levels of organization, fine-tuning and component interdependence in living things. The incredibly high requirements thresholds for biological innovations mean  the odds against biological innovations by accidental random mutations are everywhere prohibitive. 


Trying to sell us on the idea of rapid Darwinian evolution, our Livescience article has failed to provide any decent evidence for it, and has failed to provide any decent evidence for any power of Darwinian evolution to explain dramatic biological innovations. Another article on the Livescience site (by the same author as article discussed above) also tries to persuade us that evolution can work fast. It is an article entitled "Which animals are evolving fastest?" 

We have a claim that some scientists think that the fastest evolving animal is "tuataras (Sphenodon punctatus), lizard-like animals found only in modern-day New Zealand." But then we are told there has been little change in the appearance of this animal, and no mention is made of anything new that the animal evolved during human history. An evolutionary biologist named Lee says such animals  "have not evolved that much anatomically." The same biologist suggests that the fastest evolving animal is "the Lake Victoria cichlids."

We hear the claim that "More than 500 species of cichlids (Cichlidae, a family of fish) have evolved there over the past 15,000 years."  The claim is unverifiable. We don't know how many cichlids there were or what types there were 15,000 or 10,000 or 5,000 or 2000 years ago. No mention is made of any biological innovation occurring during this time. We also hear a claim that guppies are evolving quickly, but we get no specifics about this, and only get a reference to a paper behind a paywall. It seems that our author is unable to find a single animal species that is evolving in any impressive way. We hear no mention of any new anatomical structure in any species that appeared during human history, with humans observing such a feature gradually appearing. 

Read between the lines here, and you get the truth: Darwinian evolution is impotent as an explanation for visible biological innovations. We do not see Darwinian evolution acting in any very impressive way anywhere in the world, in any species. 

Fake Evolution Headline

Having the phony headline of "An Incredible Lifeform Is Evolving at Lightning Speed—Faster Than We Ever Imagined Possible," the headline above is from the Popular Mechanics site (nowadays a notorious purveyor of untrue clickbait "science news" headlines). A person reading the article about a 10-year study of water fleas will get this confession: 

"Across a 10-year span, the study analyzed the genetic variance of D. pulex in a stable environment. The study showed that the organisms experienced changing selection pressures, but that they all eventually canceled out, meaning no dominant trait took over and influenced the organism’s evolution." 

One of the very many reasons why Darwinism fails to explain innovative evolution is that generally speaking the early stages of new innovations are useless; and such early stages cannot be explained by gradualist ideas of a series of tiny steps, each giving a benefit. 

why gradualism does not work


Darwinism and other belief systems



The oldest known depictions of humans show humans looking just like current humans. There has been no major evolution of human abilities since ancient times, with the possible exception of a few minor things not visible. The ancient Greeks were as smart as anyone living today. Masterpieces of subtle philosophy such as the Dialogues of Plato are proof that before the time of Jesus there lived minds as intelligent as any living today. 

Below is a diagram illustrating a very severe problem for Darwinist explanations. Each brick in the diagram represents roughly one million human lives. It has been estimated that about 100 billion people have lived since about 10,000 BC. It is also believed that the human or pre-human population was very small prior to 10,000 BC, consisting of only about 10,000 people at any one time. So under the claims of Darwinism, there was some enormous leap of macroevolution between 200,000 BC and 10,000 BC, resulting in humans that could speak, philosophize and build cities; but there has been no major evolution in humans since 8000 BC. That makes no sense; it is not believable. Why would there be evolution so enormous in only a relatively small number of lifetimes, but no major human evolution during a period in which the number of human lifetimes was many times greater? 

Darwinism problem

Why do our scientists believe so devoutly in many things never observed, while refusing so stubbornly to believe in many other things very often observed?

macroevolution never observed

Monday, September 15, 2025

When Clocks Stop Mysteriously at the Time of Someone's Death

 I recalled reading vague claims that sometimes clocks mysteriously stop at the hour of someone's death. I decided to look for old newspaper accounts that might verify this claim. I found quite a few cases. 

Below is an account of a grandfather clock that worked fine for 30 years before mysteriously stopping and catastrophically failing at the hour of its owner's death. 


Below is a very similar account of a clock stopping at someone's death:

clock stopping at death

You can read the account here:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82014519/1919-10-11/ed-1/seq-1/

Below is another similar account of a clock stopping at someone's death:

clock stopping at death

You can read the account here:



Below is an account of a clock that seemed to foretell or announce deaths of members of the Danbury Hat Makers Association (presumably having few members):

clock stopping at death

You can read the story here:


Below is a newspaper account of two clocks stopping at the time of the same person's death:

clock stopped at death

You can read the account here:

On the page here, we read, "The New York papers also give a good deal of space to the fact that John Judge, a New York saloon keeper,
died in his saloon and at the very moment of his death the
saloon clock stopped."

Below is a newspaper account of a clock that stopped once at the hour of a family member's death, and also stopped at a very different hour when another member of the same family died.

clock stopping at death

You can read the account here:


Below is another newspaper account of a clock that stopped at the hour of a family member's death.

clock stopping at death

You can read the account here:


Below is another newspaper account of a clock that stopped at the hour of a family member's death.

clock stopping at death

You can read the account here:


Below is another newspaper account of a clock that stopped at the hour of a family member's death.

clock stopping at death

You can read the account here:


On the page here we have an account saying that Lynda Barton's father died at 9:30 PM on a Sunday, and that all of the clocks in the house stopped at 9:30 PM. We are also told that on the following Sunday all of the clocks again stopped at 9:30 PM. 

Below we have an account of a clock which makes strange noises at the time of a family member's death, not just once but twice. It is followed by an account of a long-broken clock which mysteriously starts running shortly after a family member's death

clock stopping at death


You can read the account here:


On the same page we have the account below,  which has nothing to do with clocks, but may offer better evidence for life after death than any of the accounts above. Click to read the account better. In the account Sir Edward Marshall Hall says he took a recent letter from his brother, folded it, and sealed it in an envelope with no outside indication of the letter's author. He gave the sealed envelope to his sister, requesting her to take it to the medium Miss Wingfield, to see whether she could determine the author of the letter.  An answer comes back from the medium that the author is dead. When then asked where and when the death occurred, an answer comes back from the medium in early March that the author of the letter died yesterday in South Africa. Soon Sir Edward learns by letter that his brother did die in South Africa, in early March.  

successful trip to medium

A matching account occurs in a biography of Sir Edward Marshall Hall. We have a reference to automatic writing, a technique in which a medium may go into a light trance, and produce writings, which seem to come from her subconscious or from some external source, perhaps some deceased spirit. On pages 111-112 we read this about Sir Edward Marshall Hall:

"On March 10th, 1894, he was staying with his sister at Hampton. Mrs. Labouchere had been for some time an intimate friend of Miss Wingfield. On this occasion the latter was answering, by automatic writing, questions put to her. Marshall was sceptical, and it occurred to him that he had the means of testing her powers. He had in his pocket a most unpleasant letter, received a day or two before from his elder brother. John Cressy Hall was much older than Marshall, and had long since fallen, from high prosperity as a merchant, into poverty; in 1894, he was living in South Africa on remittances sent him by Marshall. For his own protection, the money was sent through a certain Archdeacon Gaul: this was strongly resented, and the letter in Marshall’s pocket was the culmination of a very offensive correspondence on the subject, and was dated February 1894. Marshall had said nothing about this unpleasant letter to his sister, and decided to ask Miss Wingfield as to the authorship of it; he sealed it in a blank envelope, and handed it to Miss Wingfield. After some delay a message was spelt out: 'The writer of this letter is dead.'  To the question, ' When and where did the writer die? ' the answer came, ' He died yesterday in South Africa.' 

The seance made only a temporary impression on Marshall’s mind....On April 2nd, 1891, he received a second letter from Gaul, bearing a Kimberley postmark of March 8th, to the following effect: 'Dear Sir, — I little thought when I wrote last week that I should have this week the melancholy duty laid on me of informing you of the death of your brother, which occurred yesterday.' Poor Cressy Hall had, indeed, been found on March 8th dead in his bed. The message received through Miss Wingfield on March 10th had stated that the writer of the letter had died in South Africa ' yesterday ' — that is, March 9th. But, even with this slight discrepancy, it was a very strange experience."


Friday, September 12, 2025

Scientist Flubs and Flops #12

scientist overconfident boasts

neuroscience bad methods





scientific conformity versus integrity

flaws of science textbooks


hype of poor science results

science misrepresentation

science is like a religion

overconfidence in math

anti-science accusation


reality ignored by scientists



Press button to watch video


transmission of science dogma

shady neuroscientist


  • "Direct evidence that synaptic plasticity is the actual cellular mechanism for human learning and memory is lacking." -- 3 scientists, "Synaptic plasticity in human cortical circuits: cellular mechanisms of learning and memory in the human brain?" 
  • "The fundamental problem is that we don't really know where or how thoughts are stored in the brain. We can't read thoughts if we don't understand the neuroscience behind them." -- Juan Alvaro Gallego, neuroscientist. 
  • "The search for the neuroanatomical locus of semantic memory has simultaneously led us nowhere and everywhere. There is no compelling evidence that any one brain region plays a dedicated and privileged role in the representation or retrieval of all sorts of semantic knowledge."  Psychologist Sharon L. Thompson-Schill, "Neuroimaging studies of semantic memory: inferring 'how' from 'where' ".
  • "How the brain stores and retrieves memories is an important unsolved problem in neuroscience." --Achint Kumar, "A Model For Hierarchical Memory Storage in Piriform Cortex." 
  • "We are still far from identifying the 'double helix' of memory—if one even exists. We do not have a clear idea of how long-term, specific information may be stored in the brain, into separate engrams that can be reactivated when relevant."  -- Two scientists, "Understanding the physical basis of memory: Molecular mechanisms of the engram."
  • "There is no chain of reasonable inferences by means of which our present, albeit highly imperfect, view of the functional organization of the brain can be reconciled with the possibility of its acquiring, storing and retrieving nervous information by encoding such information in molecules of nucleic acid or protein." -- Molecular geneticist G. S. Stent, quoted in the paper here
  • "Up to this point, we still don’t understand how we maintain memories in our brains for up to our entire lifetimes.”  --neuroscientist Sakina Palida.
  • "The available evidence makes it extremely unlikely that synapses are the site of long-term memory storage for representational content (i.e., memory for 'facts'’ about quantities like space, time, and number)." --Samuel J. Gershman,  "The molecular memory code and synaptic plasticity: A synthesis."
  • "Synapses are signal conductors, not symbols. They do not stand for anything. They convey information bearing signals between neurons, but they do not themselves convey information forward in time, as does, for example, a gene or a register in computer memory. No specifiable fact about the animal’s experience can be read off from the synapses that have been altered by that experience.” -- Two scientists, "Locating the engram: Should we look for plastic synapses or information- storing molecules?
  • " If I wanted to transfer my memories into a machine, I would need to know what my memories are made of. But nobody knows." -- neuroscientist Guillaume Thierry (link). 
  • "Many who work within the SMC [standard model of consciousness] assume that a nervous system is necessary and sufficient for an existential consciousness. While this is a common stance...we have yet to see a coherent defense of this proposition or a well-developed biomolecular argument for it. For most, it is simply a proclamation. Moreover, we have not seen any effort to identify what features of neural mechanisms 'create' consciousness while non-neural ones cannot. This too is simply a pronouncement." -- Four scientists, "The CBC theory and its entailments," (link).
For a 62-page free E-book filled with confessions like the ones above, use the link here