🔻
Read simply as accounts of what people say happened to them, these stories are quite satisfactory, provided they are presented simply as 'stories people tell'. With this proviso some of the tales in this collection are quite fascinating even in the absence of any investigation or insight. There is the little boy who talks about the 'other Mummy' and the 'dead boy' in his house who give him 'forbidden knowledge' about the Battle of Waterloo (I hope all you social workers out there have your notebooks ready!)
There are also numerous accounts of multiple Anomalous Personal Experience (A.P.E) The problem comes when one tries to make judgements about whether individual stories are 'true', or point to some transcendental reality. Despite the authors' categorical statement, “certainly those involved in the bizarre experiences are not lying" they include Borley Rectory, the subject of a detailed critique by Hall, Dingwall and Goldney (which Randles and Hough do not allow their readers to know about) which gave good reasons for believing that Harry Price and Margaret Foster were lying.
In another case, I was present when one of the first-hand investigators told an audience which included the authors that the case was built on sand. At the same meeting I heard Jenny Randles express doubts about the veracity of the witness in another case in the book. If investigators are publicly presenting stories about which they have private reservations, what is the reader to believe?
- Peter Rogerson, from Magonia 39, 1991
No comments:
Post a Comment