E-mail from Michael Roll to John Samson (September 16, 2002): Society for Psychical Research
2002-September-16 Filed in: Campaign
In his e-mail, Michael Roll writes:
"This crushing proof of survival after death was not only censored by those who control what sees the light of day within the one-god religion of Spiritualism. It has also been censored by the thought police who have infiltrated the Society for Psychical Research ever since I first submitted these reports in 1983."Read More...
An Open Letter to the Bath-based Scientist Ronald Pearson (June 27, 2002): Professor David Fontana
2002-June-27 Filed in: Campaign
In his letter, Michael Roll writes:
"(...) the former President of the Society for Psychical Research, the psychologist Prof. David Fontana, is lecturing to students linking life after death with subatomic physics (...)"Read More...
E-mail from Michael Roll to Gary Schwartz (May 1, 2003): The Scientific Proof of Survival After Death Belongs to Every Person on Earth
2003-May-01 Filed in: Mediums
In his e-mail, Michael Roll writes:
"This begs the question, why has Prof. Archie Roy kept quiet about the revolutionary mediumship of Rita Goold that he witnessed in 1983?"Read More...
Letter from Michael Roll to Psychic News (March 17, 2001): Campaigner Compares Sceptics to Canute
2001-March-17 Filed in: Campaign
In his letter, Michael Roll writes:
”[Professor Gary Schwartz] is only receiving this publicity because he has not committed the scientific heresy of following in the steps of Sir Oliver Lodge - linking the subject of survival after death with the scientific discipline of subatomic physics (…)”Read More...
Letter from Montague Keen to Psychic News (March 10, 2001): Scole: No Evidence of Fraud
2001-March-10 Filed in: Mediums
In his letter, Montague Keen writes:
"What is depressing about the critics is their willingness to construct an upturned pyramid of hypotheses and speculations, all balanced on one improbable assumption after another. What is so remarkable is their unwillingness to accept the oft repeated challenge to take the scientifically warranted course of viewing all the evidence together, rather than attempting to pick theoretical holes in every individual item."
It is notable that this letter was published in Psychic News and not in New Scientist, where it would have provided a balance to the outburst from Dr. Susan Blackmore published there on November 4, 2000. Dr Blackmore referred to the Scole Report as "infamous".
It is also notable that experiments carried out by Professor Gary Schwartz are never censored because he has not linked the subject of survival after death with natural forces in the universe, and with the scientific discipline of subatomic physics that looks at the invisible part of the universe.
E-mail from Michael Roll to Montague Keen (December 2, 2003): Perrott-Warrick
2003-December-02 Filed in: Campaign
In his e-mail, Michael Roll writes:
"I can't understand why the latest recipient of money from the Perrott-Warrick fund, Prof. Delanoy, refuses to take part in any experiments with a materialisation medium. This is the only type of medium that can actually prove survival after death with repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions where all five of our senses are working."Read More...
Letter from Montague Keen (May 13, 2002): Colin Fry and PRISM
2002-May-13 Filed in: Mediums
In May 2002, the medium Colin Fry complained about a statement made on this site.
In a letter, written on July 11, 2001, it was stated that Colin Fry had offered to work with Psychical Research Involving Selected Mediums (PRISM) and that PRISM did not take up his offer.
In his letter, Montague Keen writes:
In a letter, written on July 11, 2001, it was stated that Colin Fry had offered to work with Psychical Research Involving Selected Mediums (PRISM) and that PRISM did not take up his offer.
In his letter, Montague Keen writes:
"There is not the least reason why anyone attending or conducting spiritualist sittings for the purpose of receiving or imparting communications with the deceased should wish to submit themselves to objective scrutiny, especially when the history of such investigations has so many examples of hostility and ignorance on the part of investigators whose mind-sets are incompatible with the subject, the phenomena and the people under investigation."Read More...