In the comments thread of my last post, Renaud Evrard pointed me to an excellent article by Mario Varvoglis on the Kluski materializations. This piece goes into more detail about the experiments and clearly shows the weaknesses of the attempted skeptical explanation.
The two skeptical researchers, Massimo Polidoro and Luigi Garlaschelli, performed some tests supposedly showing how Kluski produced his spirit molds fraudulently. Their main intent was to prove that a person could remove his hand from the wax mold without cracking the mold. But in presenting this explanation, they left unmentioned a number of crucial points.
Polidoro and Garlaschelli write,
Strictly following Geley's instructions, we prepared two basins (each had a diameter of 10 inches): one with hot water (approximately 5 litres at 55ºC), in which we poured a layer of molten paraffin (approx. 1 kg, previously melted in a pan with boiling water on a kitchen stove), and the other with cold water (5 litres), which we later used to immerse our hands and allow the paraffin to solidify. In turn, we immersed our hands first in the basin filled with paraffin and then in the one containing water.
But this is quite misleading, as Varvoglis' article makes clear. In the Kluski tests, there was no basin of cold water. Varvoglis:
Rather than using a second bowl for cooling, the IMI [Institut Metapsychique International]researchers preferred to allow the wax moulds to rigidify on their own, this being, as we shall see, a precaution against fraud.
The unnaturally rapid rate of cooling of Kluski's paraffin molds was itself a sign that something unusual was going on. Without any cold water available, the molds still cooled and set within one or two minutes - much faster than should have been possible. Kluski's hands (controlled throughout) were observed to get quite cold at times, as if he could produce a change in temperature at will.
The two skeptics, Polidoro and Garlaschelli, continue:
In all of these cases, we were able rather easily to make some fairly thin moulds (a few millimeters thick) just by immersing the hands a couple of times in the basin with the paraffin. But our most significant result was that in every instance we managed to remove our hands from the solidified paraffin glove without breaking it.
This sounds persuasive until we realize that molds "a few millimeters thick" are still significantly thicker than those produced in the Kluski tests, as Varvoglis observes:
Finally, it should be mentioned that the wax moulds were less than a millimeter thick (thinner than a sheet of paper).
And again:
the wax moulds were exceptionally delicate : at most a millimeter thick.
The thinness and fragility of the Kluski molds would have greatly complicated efforts to extricate the hand from the mold without having the mold fall to pieces - something the skeptics fail to mention.
Another fact creating difficulty for the skeptics is that Kluski's molds were much smaller than his own hands. The molded hands were child-sized; no one in the séance room had hands so small. In addition, the fingerprints of the molded hands were not those of Kluski. (It is a tribute to the thoroughness of the researchers that they actually checked this detail with the help of the police.)
Polidoro and Garlaschelli try to address this point:
It would not be difficult to conclude ... that particularly complex moulds could have been shaped with extreme care, before a séance took place, by the medium himself or his accomplices and, during the séance, jumbled up with other moulds forged at the moment of performing the spiritualist occurrence.
This won't do. The séance room was locked; only the investigators and Kluski were present. Who, then, was the accomplice? More important, there could have been no substitutions in at least three of the cases, when the investigators secretly treated the paraffin wax with telltale chemicals.
Here is one such case, per Varvoglis:
Just prior to beginning, Richet and Geley had secretly added a bluish coloring agent to the paraffin. Control of the medium was considered excellent, with controllers regularly checking and verbally reporting ‘I am holding the right hand’, ‘I am holding the left hand’. Splashing sounds were heard about twenty minutes into the session, and one to two minutes later two warm paraffin gloves were deposited next to the controllers. Both wax moulds had precisely the same bluish tint as that of the tank, strongly suggesting that these were indeed created during the séance, and not smuggled in by the medium. An additional control was the weighing of all substance. Prior to the experiment, the paraffin was 3.920 grams, while at the end of the session it weighed 3.800 grams. The two moulds weighed 50 grams, and there was considerable wax scattered near the medium (around 15 grams), on his clothing, and on the floor 3.5 meters away from him (about 25 grams). Insofar as the sum of these weights correspond very closely to the initial weight, this further establishes that the wax gloves were produced during the session.
Moreover, Kluski's hands were held at all times throughout the sessions by investigators who were well aware of the old "substitution of hands" ploy used by fake mediums. The red light in the room, though dim, was sufficient to allow the sitters to see the outlines of the people at the table. Any gross movements occurring right in front of their faces would have been seen.
Why, then, did the researchers not see the spirit hands entering the paraffin bath? On at least one occasion, they apparently did. Varvoglis writes:
Finally, in one session the researchers actually saw the production of the wax moulds. In other words, they witnessed a continuity between the visual apparitions of luminous hands and the creation of the moulds. As Geley describes it :
We had the great pleasure of seeing the hands dipping into the paraffin. They were luminous, bearing points of light at the finger-tips. They passed slowly before our eyes, dipped into the wax, moved in it for a few seconds, came out, still luminous, and deposited the glove against the hand of one of us.
Varvoglis' complete article is well worth reading. In total, it makes a compelling case for the reality of the Kluski phenomena, and points up the extreme deficiencies of the skeptics' counterargument.
for all the animal lovers in the world there is hope for seeing your beloved pets again.
"Kluski is also important to Spiritualist belief as he dealt a death-blow to Christian anthropocentrism (that, illogically, teaches only human beings survive death), as his seances enjoyed the presence of animals returning. Sylvia Barbanell cited Pawlowski's testimony that sitters experienced the materialization of various types of animals; he recorded an instance of a dog materializing and jumping upon the laps of the sitters, and in a seance with a red lamp, a hawk-like bird flew around, with its wings beating against the walls: this occasion was photographed. Validating a further feature of Spiritualist belief, i.e. that bonds of affection are not broken by death, when certain persons materialized in the Kluski seances, they would be accompanied by an animal that left as soon as their human companion departed. The significant feature, as Mrs Barbanell observed, is that the Kluski seances demonstrated that all, rather than some animals survive death."
from the website:http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/seance/78/kl.htm
Posted by: william | April 16, 2008 at 01:15 AM
@ William
The Kluski seances demonstrated that all, rather than some animals survive death
This is not so. Animals have group souls –they have not yet reached the point of individualized consciousness. Don’t forget that humans have come through the mineral, vegetable and and animal stages as you point out in that poem you correctly quote. Only in human are they individual. You cannot have it both ways –either we ascend to full individualized status or we don’t. The materializations are just mental creations of the sitters or creations by the rather low grade astral bodies of discarnate souls. I say “low grade” because with the whole of the heavens open to you, would the higher part of your soul focus on dogs?
Posted by: | April 16, 2008 at 04:51 AM
“This is not so. Animals have group souls –they have not yet reached the point of individualized consciousness.” Anonymous.
“for all the animal lovers in the world there is hope for seeing your beloved pets again.” William.
Anonymous you are right I should have explained myself better. I do that all the time in my posts and “assume” readers know what I mean. What I meant was that most people if they have a deep desire to see their beloved pets may indeed be able to do so.
And you speak with such authority on this subject not sure if many of us at this time reach such a high level such as “heaven” as you speak of. Most of us I suspect have many incarnations on earth left to even reach these higher levels of astral worlds.
At least not most of the humans that I see on earth or what my research reveals to me will transition to these heavenly realms. Maybe Paradise/Summerland; but not these higher heavenly realms for most of us.
Of course as Michael P pointed out maybe we see what we want to see. And even more interesting read what we want to read to reinforce our existing paradigms.
If you read carefully what I stated and not what the article stated you will see that I stated “your beloved pets”. It is my belief at this time that beloved pets such as a dog may be able to transition over to a new human soul.
“Only in human are they individual.” I am not as certain on this statement as you appear to be. Maybe someday in my future but not at this time.
It appears to me that nature may be a huge or if we look at the size of the universe not so huge soul making process. Family pet dogs appear to have (learned?) some of the characteristics of a human such as shame and a self-identity. Besides dog spelled backwards is what?
I believe there are new souls and old souls on this earth. This is why we see such differences in human development. How else can we explain the difference between the compassionate liberals and those other folks?
There I go again with my humor that I have been told is dryer than our Arizona deserts.
Posted by: william | April 16, 2008 at 01:33 PM
William's comment reminds me of my favorite joke.
Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?
He lies awake at night wondering if there's a dog.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 16, 2008 at 05:20 PM
The spiritualist chatroom is still down!!!
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | April 16, 2008 at 07:42 PM
William we still have a debate about pets and humans and what degree of consciousness a dog has.
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | April 16, 2008 at 07:45 PM
The Spiritualist Chatroom has moved to a new location.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 16, 2008 at 07:50 PM
Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?
“He lies awake at night wondering if there's a dog.”
Good very good. That goes in my quote file. Should I credit it to Anonymous or Michael Prescott. Hate to admit it but it took a few seconds for me to get it. My mind went into overdrive thinking the person was a Hindu wondering if he or she was a dog in a past life. The reincarnation thing.
Discovering reincarnation was a double edge sword for me. On the one side it suggested life after death and helped to suggest that one of our greatest fears is unfounded. On the other side of the sword is the thought of coming back and having to learn and struggle and suffer through another physical life.
Posted by: william | April 16, 2008 at 09:34 PM
The confusing part to Kluski, is the manfesting of animals individually.
Then some of you equate to animals as being in soul group which makes no sense. If this is true then these manifestations could be no reliable indicator that any spirit that comes through is who they say they are.
The other thing I notice is some people will twist what they say and go against what they have said prior to always appear right which only ends up showing "ego" in its finest display to the detriment of themselves.
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 at 02:01 AM
Sorry, that was me! :-)
Posted by: Hope Rivers | April 17, 2008 at 02:02 AM
Think about it, why would a spirit manifest an animal for? what benefit has it to us, if it's not real? this is a deception in itself. Also what abiltiles do these spirits have, I know from my NDE telepathic communication was one and I'm sure there is more (knowledge into the collective consciousness?).
Basically spirits have far more abilites than we think.
There's no guaranteed that the spirits that "appear" advanced really are just playing with our heads.
If you were too take all the information we have received from "advanced" spirits you would think there would be a unifying theme or truth apparent, but as I see it, there appears more contradictions and slight differences, therefore I don't equate this to being an "Advanced Spirit" whom I can safely pin my hopes on what they are saying.
There's alot of "advanced" spiritually aware people out there writing books and leaving their two bobs worth behind for us unenlightened lot, but I believe once you've attained to the level of Christ, including all the miracles, healings his way of being and humility (he never wrote anything down himself as historical Jesus), his relationship to the creator, and his ressurection or manifestation as some here would think I think we should not make idols of these other humans, as they may appear better but fundementally they are equal to all of us and flawed to believing their truth is true where it may still not be.
If advanced spirits in the cosmos get it wrong or have differing views, how much closer do you think we are ever going to know "truth" as human beings.........
Posted by: Hope Rivers | April 17, 2008 at 02:21 AM
You want a great joke?
What does DNA stand for?
National Dyxlesia Assocation.
Posted by: The Major | April 17, 2008 at 03:53 AM
@ William
On the one side it suggested life after death and helped to suggest that one of our greatest fears is unfounded.
Even Richard Dawkins doesn’t fear death. Don’t let him beat you! Look at it like this---At the point of death, you know this:
1. There is nothing, in which case you won’t be in a position to care;
2. There is heaven, in which case death was an illusion.
Either way, you won’t be in this hell on earth!
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 at 03:54 AM
"If advanced spirits in the cosmos get it wrong or have differing views, how much closer do you think we are ever going to know "truth" as human beings........."
As human beings we have only touched the surfaced of understanding and living the truth. The “law of progress” mandates we advance. Our choices determine our rate of advancement.
Christ was a very advanced spirit. So advanced even today we do not understand much of his teachings. Example it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.
So few people know why this is so even intellectually. Churches don’t dare teach the literal meaning of this statement so they come up with the idea about a camel having to unload to get thru a gate. Too dangerous to teach and even if they did people would think if they became poor they would go to heaven.
Another example the meek shall inherit the earth. All observations suggest otherwise but this happens to be a very profound statement.
Guarantee you bill gates is getting all kinds of kudos for all the money he is donating to help others but one person could give their last ten cents out of love and compassion to another and be seen more evolved than gates in love and compassion.
It is about a level of consciousness (love and compassion) not if one is rich or poor although a highly evolved soul would have no need to acquire or have large sums of money. Jesus is a perfect example of this.
We humans have a long way to go on this journey but it appears there is much more joy and creation that lies ahead on this journey as we advance in love and intelligence. I suspect joy beyond our human imagination.
In no way am I suggesting in my statements I am a highly evolved soul.
Posted by: william | April 17, 2008 at 04:16 AM
"In no way am I suggesting in my statements I am a highly evolved soul."
Yes you are, William. You're the dog's bollocks!
Posted by: Ross W | April 17, 2008 at 05:18 AM
William you forget about all the Hellish NDE's as if people never had them either.
And what equates to having one to begin with?
You'd think someone very fearful would experience a fearful NDE in theory but this isn't necessarily the case.
I really don't believe enough research has gone into these experiences beyond the obvious connections to religious beliefs, that they all quickly point it too.
But what about the others that didnt fit into these nice boxes? they get swept under the carpet and not mentioned (the nice average person who hasnt really done anything severely wrong and is nice too people)but goes to experience a hellish NDE....
Are we all entering a paradise of bliss? Can you guarantee that?
Or is self delusion an easier path?
Posted by: Hope Rivers | April 17, 2008 at 08:48 AM
An NDE to me is like an invitation to either a good or bad party, it's not an indication that you also live at the house's address.
Posted by: Hope Rivers | April 17, 2008 at 08:51 AM
or will live at the house's address :-)
Posted by: Hope Rivers | April 17, 2008 at 08:52 AM
The funny thing is all NDE's get kicked out of the party and sent back home......And why is this?
Maybe if we look at what changes occur in most NDE people we will see a theme. The theme is to be better, kinder, love more, be more compassionate,etc...they have this desire to transcend who they were to evolving and becoming closer to their creator, strange isnt it?
I mean if you knew you were guaranteed a place in paradise because you had a nice NDE why would you bother changing, or try to transcend, since you believe you know your going back there again and if your belief is all about reincarnating, what the hell! let it all hang out we'll evolve later in those future incarnations who cares?...........
But yet this is not what generally happens to NDEr's is it? Whether they experience a good or bad one.
Posted by: Hope Rivers | April 17, 2008 at 09:02 AM
Pope John Paul II declared in a public audience in 1990 that "also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren".
He said, too, that they are the "fruit of the creative action of the Holy Spirit and merit respect," and are as near to God as men are."
The Pope went on to say that, "animals have the breath of life and were given it by God. In this respect, man created by the hand of God is identical with all living creatures. The existence therefore of all living creatures depends on the living spirit/breath of God that not only creates but also sustains and renews the face of the earth."
God knows how he worked that out. Perhaps he came across Kluski.
Posted by: Ross W | April 17, 2008 at 09:40 AM
"because you had a nice NDE why would you bother changing, or try to transcend, since you believe you know your going back there again and if your belief is all about reincarnating, what the hell! let it all hang out"
Presumably, Hope, because it's better up there and you'd rather not come back and go through all that childhood stuff again...and those exams...and that mindless repetitive work to earn a crust...need I go on? Buddhists certainly want out!
Posted by: Ross W | April 17, 2008 at 09:45 AM
@ Ross W
God knows how he worked that out. Perhaps he came across Kluski.
Or more likely his pet poodle died.
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Careful! I understand His Holiness'American itinerary includes a visit to the 'All Pets Go To Heaven' pet funeral home in Brooklyn.
Posted by: Ross W | April 17, 2008 at 10:14 AM
“Are we all entering a paradise of bliss? Can you guarantee that?”
No cannot guarantee paradise after this life or the next or the next or whatever but: sooner or later the law of progress although not a law but an “is factor” all will enter a paradise that some call Summerland.
What drives this law of progress something called karma. On-going continual improvement that looks more like a spiral than a constant upward trend (i.e. performance curve).
“Or is self delusion an easier path?”
For most it appears to be an easier path. With self-delusion it is all about degrees not absolutes. All (that includes William) humans have self-delusion to some degree. Without some level of self-delusion there is no creation of perceived personal identities.
Self-delusion is based in ignorance (i.e. unawareness). Often a resistance to realty because of the pain of an existing experience or thoughts of whatever reality is in our life at that time.
Those that claim no self-delusion are delusional.
Posted by: william | April 17, 2008 at 11:52 AM
"The Pope went on to say that, "animals have the breath of life and were given it by God. In this respect, man created by the hand of God is identical with all living creatures. The existence therefore of all living creatures depends on the living spirit/breath of God that not only creates but also sustains and renews the face of the earth."
I think the pope is on to something here. And those that do factory farming to supply us with cheap meat and enhance their profits should be tried as criminals.
If I treated their pet like that they would shoot me.
I don’t believe animals have a perceived self-identity like we do but they do have thoughts and feelings and that consciousness is slowly evolving towards a perceived self identity we call a soul.
Factory farming is a disgrace. How a society treats its animals is a reflection of the compassion and love of a society and thus the level of soul development of that society.
Profits over the humane treatment of animals says it all about a capitalist system that puts profits over its humane treatment of animals..
My being raised on a farm we did not treat our animals like factory farms do to maximize profits.
Posted by: william | April 17, 2008 at 05:54 PM
You're right, William, of course. The reason I was flippant about dogs was because in this country (UK) people tend to regard them nmore highly than their neighbours. And they tend to have two instead of one (which increases factory farming to feed them). And they tend to be big. And they let them bark.
And guess what? I don't like dogs!
Posted by: Ross W | April 18, 2008 at 03:16 AM
“And they let them bark.
And guess what? I don't like dogs!”
Same problem here in America. Most people with pet dogs don’t mind their dogs barking but if you have to listen to a dog bark that is not your dog it is irritating to most people.
Kind of like smoking. Smoking had to drop below 40% of people smoking before cities and states started outlawing smoking in public places.
I remember working in an office where they banned smoking because the fumes were causing computer problems. They thought more of their computers than the employee’s health.
As a teen I remember being in a hospital room with four people and everyone but myself smoked. Now of course smoking is banned in hospitals. It appears we humans do learn.
We humans tend to be a tad bit self-centered and often find it difficult it see through the eyes of others. I believe as a soul matures this will change and people demonstrate more empathy towards others.
All part of the journey I suspect.
We have a show called the dog whisper here in the states and I watch it even though I do not own a dog. This guy talks about human energy and how dogs detect one’s energy they are putting forth. This guy is almost mystical when it comes to working with dogs.
With all that knowledge about dogs was he a dog in a past life. Sorry dry humor again.
Posted by: william | April 18, 2008 at 05:27 AM