JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION A Publication of the Society for Scientifi c Exploration (ISSN 0892-3310) Editorial Offi ce: Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, Society for Scientifi c Exploration, Kathleen E. Erickson, JSE Managing Editor, 151 Petaluma Blvd. So., #301, Petaluma, CA 94952 USA [email protected], 1-415-435-1604, (fax 1-707-559-5030) Manuscript Submission: Submit manuscripts online at http://journalofscientifi cexploration.org/index.php/jse/login Editor-in-Chief: Stephen E. Braude, University of Maryland Baltimore County Managing Editor: Kathleen E. Erickson, Petaluma, CA Assistant Managing Editor: Eve E. Blasband, Larkspur, CA Assistant Managing Editor: Elissa Hoeger, Princeton, NJ Associate Editors Carlos S. Alvarado, Parapsychology Foundation, New York, NY Daryl Bem, Ph.D., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Robert Bobrow, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY Courtney Brown, Emory University, Atlanta, GA Etzel Cardeña, Lund University, Sweden Jeremy Drake, Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA Bernard Haisch, Digital Universe Foundation, USA Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin, TX Roger D. Nelson, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ Mark Rodeghier, Center for UFO Studies, Chicago, IL Daniel Sheehan, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA Society for Scientifi c Exploration Website — http://www.scientifi cexploration.org Editorial Board Chair, Prof. Richard C. Henry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD Dr. Mikel Aickin, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ Dr. Steven J. Dick, U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, DC Dr. Peter Fenwick, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK Dr. Alan Gauld, University of Nottingham, UK Prof. Robert G. Jahn, Princeton University, NJ Prof. W. H. Jeff erys, University of Texas, Austin, TX Dr. Wayne B. Jonas, Samueli Institute, Alexandria, VA Dr. Michael Levin, Tufts University, Boston, MA Dr. David C. Pieri, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Prof. Juan Roederer, University of Alaska–Fairbanks, AK Prof. Peter A. Sturrock, Stanford University, CA Prof. Yervant Terzian, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Prof. N. C. Wickramasinghe, Churchill College, UK SUBSCRIPTIONS & PREVIOUS JOURNAL ISSUES: Order forms on back pages or at scientifi cexploration.org. COPYRIGHT: Authors retain copyright to their writings. However, when an article has been submitted to the Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, the Journal holds fi rst serial rights. Additionally, the Society has the right to post the published article on the Internet and make it available via electronic and print subscription. Th e material must not appear anywhere else (including on an Internet website) until it has been published by the Journal (or rejected). After publication, authors may use the material as they wish but should make appropriate reference to JSE: “Reprinted from “[title of article]”, Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, vol. [x], no. [xx], pp. [xx], published by the Society for Scientifi c Exploration, http://www.scientifi cexploration.org.” Journal of Scientifi c Exploration (ISSN 0892-3310) is published quarterly in March, June, September, and Decem- ber by the Society for Scientifi c Exploration, 151 Petaluma Blvd. So., #301, Petaluma, CA 94952 USA. Society Members receive online Journal subscriptions with their membership. Online Library subscriptions are $135. JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION A Publication of the Society for Scientifi c Exploration AIMS AND SCOPE: Th e Journal of Scientifi c Exploration publishes material consistent with the Society’s mission: to provide a professional forum for critical discussion of topics that are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science, and to promote improved understanding of social and intellectual factors that limit the scope of scientifi c inquiry. Topics of interest cover a wide spectrum, ranging from apparent anomalies in well-established disciplines to paradoxical phenomena that seem to belong to no established discipline, as well as philosophical issues about the connections among disciplines. Th e Journal publishes research articles, review articles, essays, commentaries, guest editorials, historical perspectives, obituaries, book reviews, and letters or commentaries pertaining to previously published material. JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION A Publication of the Society for Scientifi c Exploration Volume 30, Number 2 2016 Editorial 169 Editorial STEPHEN E. BRAUDE Research Articles 175 Sonic Analysis of the Redlands UFO Tape Recording WILLIAM F. KRUPKE 199 The Rarity of Unambiguous Symbols in Dreams: A Case Study ANDREW PAQUETTE 217 An Experiment on Precognition with Planarian Worms FERNANDO ALVAREZ Commentary 229 On Marc Thury’s Les Tables Tournantes CARLOS S. ALVARADO Historical Perspective 233 Revealing the Real Madame d’Esperance: An ADRIAN PARKER Historical and Psychological Investigation ELISABETH WARWOOD Book Reviews 267 Psychic Phenomena and the Brain: Exploring the Neuropsychology of Psi by Bryan J. Williams NEMO MÖRCK 275 The Man Who Could Fly: St. Joseph of Copertino and the Mystery of Levitation by Michael Grosso STEPHEN E. BRAUDE 279 Triangular UFOs: An Estimate of the Situation by Dave Marler JOHN ALEXANDER 282 Against the Tide: A Critical Review by Scientists of How Physics and Astronomy Get Done edited by Martin Lopez Corredoira and Carlos Castro Perelman RON WESTRUM SSE News 286 Bial Foundation Grants 287 Institute for Venture Science Grants 288 Aspiring Explorers Program 289 SSE Joint Euro-Meeting Announcement with Swedish Society for Parapsychological Research and Agora Centre for Biosystems 293 SSE Masthead 294 Index of Previous Articles in JSE 313 Order forms for JSE Issues, JSE Subscriptions, and Society Membership 316 Instructions for JSE Authors Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 169–174, 2016 0892-3310/16 EDITORIAL uring a recent review of some issues concerning the reliability of Deyewitness testimony in parapsychology, I was reminded of some fascinating episodes that I believe will interest many JSE readers. These episodes concern a familiar criticism of non-laboratory parapsychological data held not only by parapsychological skeptics and those only casually familiar with the field but also by many veteran psi researchers. Challenges to the reliability of eyewitness accounts typically focus on cases of physical mediumship, poltergeists, and apparitions, in which (we’re told) observers ordinarily base their reports on phenomena from darkened séance rooms, or under other poor psychological and physical conditions of observation (e.g., periods of distress or distraction, or objects moving too quickly to be observed and described reliably). Moreover, these are conditions in which observers are particularly liable to misperceive in accordance with their own biases or predispositions in favor of the paranormal. So (we’re told), eyewitness accounts in these cases should be treated with great caution at the very least, because they’re too liable to be contaminated by observer-bias in favor of the paranormal. I’ve discussed this Argument from Human Bias elsewhere (e.g., Braude 1997, 2007), even in a previous Editorial (JSE 28(2)). I’ve noted, for example, that even if eyewitness reports are fallible, it doesn’t follow that they’re unreliable to a very high degree, or simply too unreliable to be trusted, especially in the best cases—precisely those in which observational errors are highly unlikely. It’s important to remember, first of all, that observation reports are never absolutely (or categorically) acceptable. At best, they can only be conditionally acceptable. Granted, sometimes the conditions are clearly satisfied, and so some reports can be highly reliable. Nevertheless, several factors influence whether or not (or to what degree) we accept a particular observation claim. Probably the most important are: (a) the capabilities, condition, interests, and integrity of the observer, (b) the nature of the object(s) allegedly observed, and (c) the means of observation and the conditions under which the observation occurred. When we evaluate reports of paranormal phenomena, we weight these factors differently in different cases. But in general, it matters: (a) whether the observers are trained, sober, honest, alert, calm, prone to exaggeration, subject to flights of imagination, blessed with good eyesight, and whether they have strong prior interests in observing carefully and accurately; (b) whether the objects are too small to see easily, whether they’re easily mistaken for other things, 170 Editorial or whether (like fairies, extraterrestrials, and unicorns) they’re of a kind whose existence can’t be taken for granted; and (c) whether the objects were observed at close range, with or without the aid of instruments, whether they were stationary or moving rapidly, whether the observation occurred under decent light, through a dirty window, amidst various distractions, etc. I’ve also pointed out that even if witnesses were biased to experience paranormal physical phenomena, that wouldn’t explain why independent reports agree on unexpected and peculiar details, such as the raining of stones or excrement in the homes of poltergeist victims. Moreover, an argument from bias could be used to undermine virtually every scientific report requiring instrument readings and ordinary human observation. After all, it’s not just parapsychologists and “plain folk” who have strong beliefs, desires, and predispositions about how the universe works.