Introduction

MARA have attempted to reproduce an experiment known as the Phillip Experiment which was performed by a Canadian group in the 1970’s.  We made up an artificial character who died during the second world war and attempted to contact the character via psychic means.  We hoped to replicate the effects of the Philip group who were very successful at producing psychokinetic effects such as knocks and raps on the table when they questioned their artificial character "Phillip". If we could replicate the Phillip results, it would add weight to the hypothesis that poltergeist activity is a result of the human mind rather than anything externally spiritual.  However, our results have shown that all of the minor anomalies which occurred throughout the Humphrey Experiment can be accounted for without any psychic or paranormal activity.   

The experiments

The experiments took place bi-weekly over a period of about 1 year during 2003 and 2004.  Five MARA members made up the psychic group and a 6th member was present to monitor results on the recording equipment and give feedback to the group whenever there was an unexpected change as registered by the recording equipment.  The entire experiments were recorded on VHS video tape with a camcorder at a distance of about 3 meters from the psychic crew.  A supplementary audio tape was recorded on a cassette recorder placed at the centre of the table around which the psychic crew sat. The microphone was ideally placed at the centre of the table in case any noises were transmitted through it and would also be available for the detection of electronic voice phenomena.  We monitored 4 digital thermometers at different locations in the room, one of which was placed on the table.  Two hygrometers for measuring change in atmospheric water content were also monitored.  A Trifield meter was connected to a chart recorder and the meter was pointed towards the centre of the table at a distance of about 1.5 meters from the table centre.  The Trifield meter has several settings and in the SUM position, it monitors changes in both magnetic and electric field, this is the setting we used.  We also used a Plum bob suspended from a tripod as this could be easily moved by anything with a force greater than a weak draught.

The results and write up of the experiments formed the dissertation for one participants degree in Psychology which finished in the summer of 2004.  We had the backing of Liverpool John Moores University Psychology department for the experiment and the results were also sent to the Society for Psychical Research (SPR).  The Trifield meter was very sensitive to movements of the participants and whenever any member moved for whatever reason, this was event marked on the chart recorder so that it could not be misconstrued as an anomalous event.  When a participant felt that they had experienced something anomalous, the exact time was event marked on the chart recorder to see if any changes in human perception corresponded to changes in electric or magnetic field recorded on the Trifield meter.  For each experiment all participants including the instrument monitor completed a number of parapsychology forms provided by John Moores University to help assess the psychological profile of each participant throughout the experiments.

A more thorough explanation of the experiment, it's background and results are given  below the pictures

Picture of the Humphrey psychic crew (right) and some of the recording equipment used in the experiment including digital thermometers, hygrometer, VHS recorder, monitor, plum bob with tripod,  trifield meter and chart recorder.

Detailed explanation of the experiment and its results
The ‘Philip’ Experiment.
The ‘Philip’ experiment was a Parapsychology experiment originally carried out in 1973-1974 by the Toronto Society for Psychical Research, led by I.M.Owen and M.H.Sparrow, though much of their research was adapted from the table levitation experiments of three British Parapsychologists:-K.J.Batcheldor, Charles Brookes Smith and D.W.Hunt in 1964-1965.

The experiment is described by Owen and Sparrow in the Toronto SPR journal New Horizons 1974, vol 1,p6-13, as the “Generation of paranormal physical phenomena in connection with an imaginary communicator.”  The group met on a regular basis, at least once per week.

The hypothesis was that a group of people could generate Psychokinetic phenomena, or could affect the physical environment purely with their minds.  The phenomena was attributed to a group created personality which they named Philip. The theory is that “ghosts” and “poltergeist” phenomena are subconscious creations of those present. None of the group members claimed to be psychically gifted.

One member created the personality for Philip, a bare outline of a story involving an entirely fictitious historical personality. The reason for creating this personality is that C.B.Smith suggested a theory of “Ownership Resistance”, or the in-built reluctance to identify oneself directly as the source of paranormality. If the paranormal acts can be attributed to someone else they are more likely to occur.

Iris Owen’s, and her husband A.R.G. Owen’s, research into poltergeist phenomena led them to suggest that it indicated young people and/or stressful situations seemed to serve as a conduit for the activity.  The researchers describe Philip as a figment of the imagination-created out of the fertile minds of the experimenters. Iris Owen states quite clearly that “THERE NEVER WAS A REAL PHILIP!” The group was absolutely sure at all times that “he was not a disembodied spirit, or even some mischievous spirit playing a prank by assuming the personality of Philip.” Philip seemed unable to provide any information beyond that which the group had conceived.

Another member of the group drew a picture of Philip, how they thought he would look, and all members studied books dealing with the era Philip was based in. They also studied and brought to the experiments significant items from the era. The Phillip story was kept fairly light-hearted while having the obvious ending that Philip had died an untimely death, . The intention was not to create a personality to be feared. It was theorised that fear would create a negative event, so all of the members had to be happy to be involved with the research. In Canada they discovered that a positive attitude led to positive events. Iris Owen’s hypothesis was that the expression of fear inhibited the phenomena.

Owen and Sparrow’s original method lasted for a year without any activity, it was only when they researched Bacheldor’s table levitation experiments that they were able to create phenomena. Bacheldor, after a slow start, experienced phenomena at the first sitting. This method involved the group being relaxed during the sittings, they would sing, joke and banter, creating a light-hearted mood while aware of the serious purpose of their meeting, this was wherein Owen and Sparrow were failing.

At the 3rd or 4th sitting on using this new method the group got raps and table movement. They were also able to communicate with the personality through knocks. On asking “Is it Philip?” they would hear a loud rap. They were able to adopt a system of raps for the purpose of communication. There were also objects which would stick to the table, lights switching on and off, raps on pipes and cool breezes. The group were in full light at all times.  Iris Owen suggested events seemed to be ‘triggered off’ by a remark that produced an emotional response.

The group asked questions of the personality with regards to his life, it was felt that the answers produced represented the consensus of the group. If one member changed their mind on the answer, they felt it should give, the raps would change.

Owen suggests that ‘in this situation, what the mind can create it can also, when it wants to, destroy...’. She claims that a poltergeist outbreak is usually the result of one person’s thoughts, though ‘the group commented frequently on the similarity between traditional poltergeist outbreaks and the Philip phenomenon’.

Owen claims that ‘discussion and observation led them to believe that even in the group situation, the production of physical phenomena was caused initially by the release of tension.’ The group do not discount the possibility of disembodied entities, but believe that the communications received during the experiment, and probably nearly all poltergeist activity, are due to the subconscious personality of the character, and the combined personalities of the group.  “What the observers claim to see is just exactly what they are expecting to see....We realised that should anything happen that we did not wish, we could control it with a concentrated thought.” (Owen,I. 1977)  “Humans can produce spirits through expectation, imagination and visualisation.” Owen also states that “(Philip) was unable to provide any information beyond that which the group had conceived.” (Owen,I,. 1977)

This experiment has mostly been repeated by members of the SPR. Iris Owen theorised that any group of non-psychic people could create similar phenomena in this way. She created a second group of sitters who were also able to produce phenomena.

Ethically, the MARA group are fully aware of the possible results of the experiment and this group regularly investigates similar phenomena, looking for scientifically valid conclusions.

The Humphrey Experiment
Permission and ethical approval were obtained from John Moores University (Liverpool) Psychology department for the experiments to form the dissertation of one participants degree in Psychology.  All participants including the monitor filled in the following forms at the beginning and end of each experiment:

1. Authorisation information for inclusion of results in dissertation.
2. Preliminary subjective feeling questionnaire and ethics agreement.
3. The States of Mind Scale. (An analogue of mental and emotional states.)
4. ‘Lately or Right Now, I Feel...’ form. (Oh, how they adore this one!)
5. The Australian Sheep-Goat Scale. (For belief and scepticism.)
6. The Big Five ( A personality scale.)
7. The Albert Budden Witness Environmental Health Census.
8. The Transliminality Scale. (Consciousness questionnaire.)

During the first experiment some video camera filming and photographic shots of the group were recorded. The character was created “Lieutenant Commander Humphrey Gladstone”. The character creation was humorous, involved lots of laughter, and an excellent group dynamic.  The names Humphrey and Gladstone were both randomly selected.

The character: (A simplified synopsis):-
Upper class, born 1915/16 in Oxfordshire, son of an Anglican bishop. Humphrey served in the navy during the second World War, in a submarine.  He was married with two children, and had a mistress in Portsmouth. He was lost at sea and was unable to make it home for his daughter’s birthday which left him grief stricken. His wife and son were killed in the blitz, and his daughter lapsed into illness, but she still lives. Humphrey is a stocky man with dark hair and a full beard, who smoked a pipe.

Equipment:-

Temperature gauges. (One on table, one on left wall, one on right, one at back of room.)
Video camera. (Filming group, wide shot.)
Still photographic cameras.
Trifield Meter. (For measuring electromagnetic change activity.) Plus Chart recorder providing a permanent record.
Magnetic compasses.
Tape recorder on table. (Measures sound and possible EVP.)
Hygrometer. (Measuring humidity, on left wall.)
Since experiment two we have used a pendulum.
Participants were also given a piece of paper provided to record subjective accounts of experience.

Results of the experiments
The preliminary meeting helped to gauge participants’ thoughts on what they expected to happen and what they felt in the room. This helped as a control, in determining if they feel anything in the room before the experiment begins, such as cold draughts, or hearing creaking in the walls due to expansion and contraction with heat.  Anything recorded on video or tape was transcribed into notes. 

Meeting two was the first Humphrey experiment. At each meeting the group sat around a table, while a non-participant, in the background monitored the equipment. The group began by meditating for ten minutes.  This had been suggested by previous studies to be conducive to the experience of phenomena, in providing a relaxed and open state of mind.  

The experiment then began, and questions were asked of Humphrey. The participants asked questions based on Humphrey’s personality and experiences, tried to encourage Humphrey to change the temperature on the thermometer, lowering or raising it by 0.2 of a degree Celsius, move the pendulum, change the Trifield Meter reading, leave a message on the tape recorder, knock once for no or twice for yes on the table etc. These engagements with Humphrey were interjected at various intervals with general discussion, laughter and frivolity. The meetings lasted for about an hour. At the first meeting it was discovered just how effective the Trifield Meter was by it picking up group laughter.  A small change on the Trifield meter was recorded as the group talked about the queen mother. This was event marked on the chart recorder and reported to the group by the monitor.  The group once again talked about the queen without any response on the Trifield meter.  One or two non-complimentary remarks were then made about the queen mother as some participants felt that it might anger Humphrey, forcing him to evoke a response, but there was none. 

At meeting three one participant reported a feeling of recent heightened awareness (all participants had been asked to report any interesting or peculiar experiences during the intervening period between meetings).  Another reported noticing in a shop window medals surrounding a pipe, of no particular display significance.  It was suggested that the group should try calling the entity Humphrey at times and then Lieutenant Commander at other times, to gauge the results.  1940s music was played in the background.  Subjective feelings of draughts were felt by some participants, particularly across fingers.  Some sudden changes in the Trifield meter were recorded as the group started talking about Lieutenant Commander Gladstone, but nothing else anomalous was recorded.

At meeting four it was suggested that the group concentrate on the digital thermometer at the centre of the table, rejecting Humphrey for a short period, to see if the group could affect it, rather than attributing it to an external character. The Group concentrated on the thermometer attempting to increase temperature by 0.2 of a degree Celsius, which would have been considered as a positive result.  However, the temperature dropped by 0.1 of a degree Celsius. The resolution of the thermometer was only 0.1 degree and hence this small fluctuation must be considered as a nil result. When the group tried lowering the temperature in the same way, nothing happened.  The pendulum was placed on the table, to see if we could move it, but again this was not achieved.  It was noticed at this experiment that the temperature had dropped as the group  meditated, and as the group spoke it would raise by 0.2 degrees Celsius. Though at first this seemed like an interesting result it was concluded that this was due to the group's more shallow breathing during meditation, and more forced exhalation of body heat during speech, recorded by the sensitive thermometer at the centre of the group.  The other three thermometers were unchanged by this activity.  

During Meeting five, the pendulum was noticed to be swinging slightly.  The group did their best to attribute this to Humphrey as belief in the character was an important parameter in the experiment as explained by Iris Owen who had stated that short term false belief, in falsely attributed phenomena would often lead to unexplainable phenomena.  On rewind and playback of the VHS tape at the end of the experiment, we discovered that the pendulum movement was in fact caused by a participant accidentally knocking the pendulum with the chair that he was sitting in.  This demonstrates the functionality of recording all such experiments on videotape. One participant drew a picture of Humphrey during the meeting, something we had particularly required.  Another participant brought significant objects from the era such as Navy medals and a log book, which was also deemed by Iris Owen as important to the experiment.

Further experiments produced changes on the Trifield meter, some of them quite large and lasting only a few seconds, but none were repeatable when the same subject was broached again with Humphrey suggesting a transient attribute to these "spikes".  The group felt a little frustrated at not being able to reproduce any psychokinetic activity as described by Owen and decided in one of the latter experiments to change things, by drawing the curtains and conducting the experiment by candle light, but again this produced no increase in any type of activity.  Finally, the group consented to using a home made Ouji board to attempt to contact Humphrey.  MARA would never use a Ouji board as part of a paranormal investigation, but we will use it as part of a controlled experiment provided all participants agree.  A number of questions were asked of Humphrey and he was asked to move the glass to spell out answers while all five participants lightly put a finger on the upturned glass.  No answers were forthcoming from Humphrey and the experiment was concluded.

When all of the experiments were completed and the data partially analysed, we concluded that the most significant data we had were the spikes on the Trifield meter recordings and if anything was to be made of them, we would have to provide a control experiment.  We did this twice by setting up all of the equipment as normal and then left it running with nobody in the room for over an hour each time.  The hope was that there would be no readings recorded on the Trifield meter and then we could have concluded that the electromagnetic activity may have been caused by psychic means within the group.  The first control experiment showed an absolutely flat line on the chart recorder.  However, we were shocked by the second control experiment which showed one single large transient spike of a size and duration similar to the larger spikes we had seen in previous experiments. 

Conclusions

Our conclusions are that MARA were unable to replicate the effects described by Owen et al in the Phillip Experiment.  Several subjective effects were felt at times such as cool draughts etc, but there was nothing that we could measure with the equipment at our disposal.  The addition of candle light / darkness and a Ouji board to the experiment did not enhance either anything that was recordable or any subjective feelings to any of the participants.  The use of a Trifield meter for measuring paranormal or psychic activity is totally flawed as shown by our control experiments.  The meter may be used in corroborative evidence to show electromagnetic activity where other anomalies have been recorded by other means, but that really is the limit of its use for a paranormal group.  We still do not know what caused the large transient spikes observed during the Humphrey experiments and the control experiments. Our most important discovery is probably that with five participants sitting around a circular table with a digital thermometer at the centre, it is possible to influence the temperature reading by up to 0.2 degrees Celsius depending on whether the participants are all talking and laughing, or meditating and this is almost certainly caused by changes in the amount of exhaled warm air reaching the thermometer. 

References.

Batcheldor, K.J.(1966) Table levitation for sitter group inducing phenomena. Journal of the Society for Psychical research vol. 43. p129

Braud, W.G. (1994) Can our intentions interact directly with the physical world? European Journal of Parapsychology. vol. 10. p78-90.

Brookes Smith, C. and Hunt, D.W. (1970) Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. vol45. p744.

Gissurarson,L.P. (1992) Studies of methods of enhancing and potentially training psychokinesis: A review. Journal of the American Society of 
Psychical Research. 86. 303-346.

Honorton, C. (1977) Psi and internal attention states. In B.B. Wolman (Ed) Handbook of Parapsyhcology. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York.

Owen, A.R.G. (1964) Can we explain the poltergeist? Garrett Publications. New York. p430-436.

Owen, I.M. and Sparrow, M.H. (1974) Generation of paranormal physical phenomena in connection with an imaginary communicator. New Horizons. Vol. 
1. p6-13.

Owen,I.M. (1977) Conjuring up Philip. Harper and Row. New York. p217

Radin, D.I., Taylor, R.K., Braud, W.G. (1995) Remote mental influence of human electrodermal activity: A pilot replication. European Journal of 
Parapsychology. vol. 11. p19-34.

Schmeidler, G.R. (1966) Quantitative investigations of a haunted house. Journal of the American Society of Psychical Research. Vol. 60. p139-149.

Schmeidler, G.R. (1990) Is psi a subcognitive process? Journal of Parapsychology. vol 54. (4): p321-329.

Lyons, W. (2001) Matters of the Mind Edinburgh U.P