Abstract Thomas A. Edison has been associated with many innovations and inventions. One of the most contentious discussions regarding Edison has centered on his interest in and involvement with technologies that might offer ways to communicate with the dead. In this paper, the author examines these claims and the counterclaims in the light of what is known about Edison, his beliefs, his work and newly available information that may shed new light on his interests. The reader is left to decide the true state of affairs.
A very interesting read, I find it very interesting that the paranormal community works so hard to try to make Thomas Edison a member of the club. I'm sure that it is an attempt to legitimize the field of EVP and ITC which in mainstream science has no legitimacy. Let's briefly go section by section.
Introduction: "it is generally accepted that two such types of communications exist one is known as electronic voice phenomena (EVP)an early term that was used in the English-speaking world to designate a special kind of paranormal phenomenon consisting of words or sounds of unknown origin recorded by electronic devices in the way that defined normal explanation." - Generally accepted by who? Certainly not by the scientific community, it is only the paranormal community that accepts EVP's as evidence of the paranormal. The human sensory trait of pareidolia is the more rational explanation for EVP's not to mention the numerous audio and acoustic variances of recording.
What Edison said: "Skeptics have indicated that a sciences such as Thomas Edison would never have engaged in matters involving the spirit world." - From the evidence I have gathered Edison did not use one moment of his invention empire to engage in matters of the supernatural. He was however curious about the spiritualist movement that was going on around him at the time, since he was a man of curiosity I am sure that he looked into the matter to see if there was anything to it. All of your quotes throughout this paper come from interviews from magazines and newspapers. Edison had a complex relationship with the press he was the Britney Spears of his time and the press would seek him out knowing that they could get some interesting quote from him, and it was not unlike him to tell them what he thought they wanted to hear. Even though the sections of interviews you selected leave me wondering what point you're trying to drive home.
1919: The famous letter to Mr. William B.Lamont, no one ever publishes the whole letter at the end of the letter it is quoted "I am sending Dr. Miller Hutchinson to pay you a visit and discuss your work so far." The original letter resides in the Rose Bethera private letter collection. Why is that last section so important the name. There are no records in the archives of activities dealing with Dr. Miller Hutchinson or William B.Lamont this is puzzling considering the fact that the letter is dated December 8, 1919, and the top of the letter reads "I received your letter of November 17 with enclosures" and the archives for 1919 are very complete and the other end of this correspondence simply doesn't exist and where are the enclosures logically they would be in the archives. So we have no idea what the two men were discussing, we have entered the middle of the conversation.
1920s: " In the January 23, 1921 New York Times Edison gave a comprehensive interview regarding new work he was embarking upon to try to understand the nature of life while some have suggested that Edison was perpetuating a hoax, this author does not agree Edison was not the sort of man given to such things." - Many historians would disagree with that statement and that he was the sort of man who had no problem pulling a fast one on the press.
"There is no doubt Edison intended to build an apparatus working from a theory of what he called "life units" - I would say there is a great deal of doubt, I always interpreted life units as being biological. And the attempt at connecting Francis B. Grierson with Edison. "It is fair to say that Edison most likely had heard of Francis B. Grierson." This is the highest of speculation.
Francis Grierson meets Thomas Edison: Here's where things get interesting. "American author Frances Grierson claimed to have met Edison in London." The source for the statement does not come from any archives or book published it comes from medium Bonnie Vent, who claims that she communicated with Grierson through means of mediumship. Considering the fact that communication with the dead has not been established as a remote possibility makes the source unacceptable.
Edison and Psycho-phone's: "let us begin with what we know there are apparently no surviving prototypes of any devices developed with this intent by Edison or by any of his known colleagues. Likewise there are no architectural plans of the device.Some might wish to stop any further considerations in light of these truths." - You would think so, but why let truth get in the way of a good urban legend.
"However it was not uncommon for Edison and colleagues to destroy nonworking and what Edison considered unimportant prototypes." - Threw out this paper you have stressed the point of how important the development of this device was to Edison, you would think that one scrap of paper one notation in a diary would survive such an important mission. The truth is there are over 5 million documents at Menlo Park alone, there is not one single mention anywhere within the body of those documents that suggest that Edison used even a single moment of his time in pursuit of a device that could speak to the dead. This is also the official stance of the Park Service who oversees the archives for Menlo Park and Fort Myers the researchers there have made the statement that Edison was joking with the press. From the vast research I have conducted I see no reason to question their judgment in regards to this issue.
Psycho-phone device: The only thing wrong historically is that A.B.Saliger's company was making Psycho-Phone's as early as 1927 not 1928. More than likely the device pictured on San Diego Paranormal's webpage is a very early Model No3. I have never seen a photograph of the Psycho-Phone owned by the couple in Ohio but from the description it to is most likely a Model No3. A.B.Saliger never made a single paranormal claim, so I find it odd that the couple in Ohio are connecting paranormal events with the introduction of the device in their home. My source is of course from an e-mail posted on the above website.
Mediums and Edison: Again any claims that Edison made metaphysical appearances to mediums is unacceptable source material. "Perhaps these stories are not so far-fetched perhaps Edison would like us to know of his true interest then and even now." - no comment.
If any medium would like to be put to the test that they are communicating with Thomas Edison a controlled test could be set up, engineers like myself could come up with simple engineering formulas that would be elementary to Thomas Edison. Only the questions would be given to the medium, the answers would have to come from Thomas Edison. The only way the medium could answer the question would be if they went out and got an engineering degree the night before. Of course the control questions would get progressively more difficult.
Recent ITC Developments "more recently inventor Frank Sumption developed an IPC technology that has come to be known as "Frank's box" others in the EVP and ITC communities have used this device and other similar to it in their continued attempts to talk with deceased communicators. From this lore has emerged the notion that Edison and others involved in early EVP and ITC development have attempted to communicate with their own modern-day counterparts." - The biggest user and profiteer from the Frank's box is Chris Moon, who claims he is using Edison has some type of cosmic switchboard operator. The Frank's box is nothing more than to radio receivers scanning in opposite directions the audio mixs producing a random noise. Conveniently enough Mr. Moon is one of the chosen few who can make interpretations of the random noise.
Summary: "Ultimately he was not been successful in this particular endeavor during his life, of that point that there is no debate. However, this new evidence suggests that not only did he attempt to build the device but even now hints that he may still be continuing to try to solve the mystery." - What new evidence? This white paper has not brought the issue even a quarks closer to being resolved. To historians and skeptics and biographers and archivists, the story is open and close there is no evidence. As harsh as it sounds, suggesting that Edison is now communicating from the grave to work on an unfinished project, is utter nonsense. The only way this debate will go away is hard evidence, evidence that simply does not exist that is why your paper does not contain a single quote from the Edison archives.
I would like to address some of the comments inthe previous post.
It is not possible to make sweeping claims regarding the content of the world's largest Edison collection (located at Rutgers University). According to the curator and Edison expert Dr. Paul Israel who was consulted during the preparation of this paper, no one has fully reviewed these documents. So one cannot say with certainty what is not in these collections.
From all I can see, it appears that Edison was a very careful man. I would suggest that anyone making the claim that Edison was a hoaxter in this regard produce documents written by Edison that clearly show his intent to defraud.
There are referenced correspondences with Hutchinson including his own correspondence in the collection at Rutgers University. For example he writes Henry Ford in 1914 on Edison stationary which reveals that his title is Chief Engineer and his full name in M. R. Hutchinson, EEPhD. The letter has to do with setting a meeting with Ford in Detroit regarding submarine batteries. The comment regarding there being no record is false. I have found these types of errors over the years that often when historical research is either done poorly or not done at all.
The sources used in this paper were of two types: both data in the public domain and perhaps more important personal interviews with recognized Edison experts. Most conclusions in this paper regarding Edison's intent and things he might have done or said are consistent with opinions given during these interviews.
This paper is targeted at a general audience. It is important to understand that judgements of quality of evidence is very individual. Testing mediums is likewise non-trivial. Those who are truly interested in such matters should review the large body of peer-reviewed knowledge published in journals over the past several decades. Upon doing so they will discover that the work is not the province of physical science in that it is not a quantitative probelm. The work is in fact a qualitative problem, which is not suitable for inspection solely in the domain of physical science. This realization is central to emerging general scientific philosohpy and approaches. Without understanding these details, it is quite difficult to design and execute any tests of qualia.
Edison was not an engineer. He was an inventor who surrounded himself with people of complimentary skills. So an engineering test would be an unsuitable way to establish his identity.
This paper constitutes opinion, as it must, since there is no clear evidence one way or the other. The body of documentary evidence has not been fully reviewed, and likely won't be for many years. The notion that Edison was interested in this topic appears unchallenged. The purpose of this paper was to explore the potential relationships Edison might have had with various groups and individuals in his time. It is not intended to 'prove' anything since as was said in the paper, these points cannot be proven as of now. Instead it was intended to provide various viewpoints of the topic matter at hand.
"It is not possible to make sweeping claims regarding the content of the world's largest Edison collection (located at Rutgers University). According to the curator and Edison expert Dr. Paul Israel who was consulted during the preparation of this paper, no one has fully reviewed these documents. So one cannot say with certainty what is not in these collections."
- I am just wondering if Dr. Israel was aware of the authors methods of this is as to the method of data gathering as described in the postscript. A postscript which in my opinion renders this entire document useless. More on that later. Dr. Israel is correct in that the entire collection has not been totally examined however searches have been going on for some time. You would think a project of this alleged magnitude would render one piece of evidence. And when you take into account all of the many employees and colleagues they also have left no record of any such experimentation.
" From all I can see, it appears that Edison was a very careful man. I would suggest that anyone making the claim that Edison was a hoaxter in this regard produce documents written by Edison that clearly show his intent to defraud."
- You're taking up this argument with the wrong person, you need to contact the Park Service historians and archivists here is their official stance.
"Did Edison make a machine that could talk to the dead?
This seems to be another tall tale that Edison pulled on a reporter. In 1920 Edison told the reporter, B.F. Forbes, that he was working on a machine that could make contact with the spirits of the dead. Newspapers all over the world picked up this story. After a few years, Edison admitted that he had made the whole thing up. Today at Edison National Historic Site, we take care of over five million pages of documents. None of them mention such an experiment." Source park Service website.
As a matter of fact I would encourage the author to submit his white paper for review.
"There are referenced correspondences with Hutchinson including his own correspondence in the collection at Rutgers University. For example he writes Henry Ford in 1914 on Edison stationary which reveals that his title is Chief Engineer and his full name in M. R. Hutchinson, EEPhD. The letter has to do with setting a meeting with Ford in Detroit regarding submarine batteries. The comment regarding there being no record is false. I have found these types of errors over the years that often when historical research is either done poorly or not done at all."
- My search was narrowed down to 1919 why would I be interested in 1914 the correspondence took place in 1919. My research entailed both Menlo Park and Rutgers.
"The sources used in this paper were of two types: both data in the public domain and perhaps more important personal interviews with recognized Edison experts. Most conclusions in this paper regarding Edison's intent and things he might have done or said are consistent with opinions given during these interviews."
- Were those interviewed aware that you are using a medium for "review of historic accuracy" source Postscript. I would say Edison's intentions were played fast and loose.
"This paper is targeted at a general audience."
- That is certainly an understatement, or perhaps a naïve audience.
"It is important to understand that judgements of quality of evidence is very individual. Testing mediums is likewise non-trivial. Those who are truly interested in such matters should review the large body of peer-reviewed knowledge published in journals over the past several decades. Upon doing so they will discover that the work is not the province of physical science in that it is not a quantitative probelm. The work is in fact a qualitative problem, which is not suitable for inspection solely in the domain of physical science. This realization is central to emerging general scientific philosohpy and approaches. Without understanding these details, it is quite difficult to design and execute any tests of qualia."
- So what you're saying this is a qualitative issue? Why? Is it because mediums cannot stand up to even the most basic of scientific testing? I see nothing wrong with the protocol has proposed, of course there would be some slight modifications as protocol is defined. The truth of the matter is I am not convinced that Bonnie or any other medium is in contact with Thomas Edison. Until some even slightly interesting evidence is set forth these are nothing more than claims. Qualitative research, certainly has its uses for social and psychological studies but I see nothing that exempts the subject of alleged mediumship from standard testing.
"Edison was not an engineer. He was an inventor who surrounded himself with people of complimentary skills. So an engineering test would be an unsuitable way to establish his identity."
- Edison had no formal training as an engineer but he taught himself the language he had to communicate with his colleagues and employees. The questions would be incredibly basic many of them based on principles of DC current that came out of his own lab. Or they could be extremely simple mechanical engineering terms. In either case the claimant would not have prior access to the questions, until they were allegedly in contact with Mr. Edison.
"This paper constitutes opinion, as it must, since there is no clear evidence one way or the other. The body of documentary evidence has not been fully reviewed, and likely won't be for many years. The notion that Edison was interested in this topic appears unchallenged. The purpose of this paper was to explore the potential relationships Edison might have had with various groups and individuals in his time. It is not intended to 'prove' anything since as was said in the paper, these points cannot be proven as of now. Instead it was intended to provide various viewpoints of the topic matter at hand."
- With a big healthy dose of bias. This is as good a place as any to discuss the postscript.
Postscript- Bonnie Vent's mediumship and the research process: "Unlike other mediums Bonnie Vent does not do traditional 'readings'. There are no classic 'sittings' Bonnie routinely does something few other mediums ever attempt: she serves as a spirit advocate Bonnie's clients are the deceased and those who cannot easily speak for themselves. They make themselves known to Bonnie spontaneously. They communicate conversationally- Bonnie can hear their voices and see images as they speak. She tries to ascertain what they want and also get some information from them to ensure they are in fact who they claim."
- This is on the best of days a claim.
"Once this information has been gathered she passes it to her research partner, the author. He in turn looks into the background of the information independent of Bonnie. Sometimes he is actually involved in the communications, speaking indirectly with the communicating individuals."
- Once again how can anyone take this or any other document seriously when the information has been gathered through the use of mediumship. Even the author of the paper according to the above sentence was involved in the communication process. This makes the entire document questionable, on a personal note I don't see how anyone could write such a document and sleep at night.
"This approach represents a breakthrough in metaphysical communication and it's interpretation. And has yielded interesting results, including suggesting modifications to history."
- "suggesting modifications to history" So are going to change history via séance that's outrageous, no this methodology of historic research has no merit nor any credibility and has no place in serious study of any kind. I find it very difficult to believe that even you would defend this method. I see this paper as nothing more than another attempt by those true believers in EVP and ITC to somehow link inventor Thomas Edison to their cause. And to perpetuate this growing urban myth.
Regarding Dr. Israel, he is perhaps the most informed person in the world regarding Edison. He was aware of how this information was garnered.
I have worked with the U.S. Park Service in the past, and in fact that was how the use of mediums in rewriting history was actually pioneered.
In the 1980s a piece of history was developed during a trance session regarding the U.S. Supreme Court. This information was passed to at the time the world's leading authority on the Lincoln Presidency and his assasination, a Park Service historian of some note and merit. Working with another Government historian the two were able to confirm, to their surprise, a detail regarding a past Supreme Court that literally caused this historian to say "you have changed American history." So mediumship has on this and other occasions proven useful in historical research.
The quanitative process has already been explored in mediumship research and the body of evidence is quite impressive. Again, it is important that anyone who is sincere about this work study this evidence before commenting. The qualitative research has been done and clearly shows evidence of successful mediumship. We are now focused on the process-oriented research which is mainly qualitative in nature.
Based on the above, I think you can see why I tend to refute statements such as "this methodology has no merit nor credibility and has no place in serious study of any kind." Clearly those engaged seriously in these studies, both in research parapsychology and history have already placed confidence both in the methodology and its outcomes.
Phenomlnvestigator, man! you need a shorter username like para-Bob, or something. By the way I hope you never take my assessments personally. They are never meant to be.
"Regarding Dr. Israel, he is perhaps the most informed person in the world regarding Edison. He was aware of how this information was garnered."
- When I hear back from Mr. Israel concerning this subject. I will know firsthand, if he approves of this methodology I of course would like to have his opinion as to why.
I have worked with the U.S. Park Service in the past, and in fact that was how the use of mediums in rewriting history was actually pioneered.
- When and where please, I would be interested to know when and where our tax dollars have gone to such research.
"In the 1980s a piece of history was developed during a trance session regarding the U.S. Supreme Court. This information was passed to at the time the world's leading authority on the Lincoln Presidency and his assasination, a Park Service historian of some note and merit. Working with another Government historian the two were able to confirm, to their surprise, a detail regarding a past Supreme Court that literally caused this historian to say "you have changed American history." So mediumship has on this and other occasions proven useful in historical research."
- Sources please.
"The quanitative process has already been explored in mediumship research and the body of evidence is quite impressive."
- In my humble opinion the state of parapsychology as it stands seems to approach its research with preconceived notions, with this in mind I can see why parapsychology would use the quanitative process, seeing as how data is open for individual interpretation. Perhaps this is why my little proposal for using the most elementary of scientific evidence gathering that is the control question, seems very scary. Perhaps you could show me a case where parapsychology is putting the null hypothesis into practice.
"Based on the above, I think you can see why I tend to refute statements such as "this methodology has no merit nor credibility and has no place in serious study of any kind." Clearly those engaged seriously in these studies, both in research parapsychology and history have already placed confidence both in the methodology and its outcomes."
- Until some serious un-disputable evidence comes up I will stand by my statement and then some. I do not see how anyone who has even a molecule of critical thinking in their body could accept this method of historical fact checking. And as for confidence already been placed in this method as you suggest. I have not been given any sources to check, to even reach a conclusion.
Your question was is Dr. Israel aware of the methods used, the answer is yes. I can tell you he is not a proponent of mediumship, which is not surprising. Our discussions had to do with the historical aspects of the work which is his expertise.
You will not find this documented in the public domain. Many of these projects were not so documented. In the 1970s and 1980s while Congress was more than willing to fund such activities, few people in the Congress wanted to admit their interest publicly for various reasons. I fear your quest to find documentary proof will be problematic for this reason.
You can find references to some of the published research in parapsychology in books such as Dean Radin's "Entangled Minds" and "Irreducible Mind" by Kelly, Kelly et al. (the latter was written for post-doctoral scientists).
In principle the work follows normal scientific investigatory methods. The published journal work is quite clear in this regard. You can get a flavor for the variety from the abstracts of the 2008 Parapsychological Association convention held last year in Winchester, England at http://www.parapsych.org/PDF/PA-2008-Abstracts.pdf
Do not confuse this with "ghost research" for example. There are really few preconceived notions in scientific research parapsychology. In fact, an open and critical mind is required to investigate psi as the phenomena is quite outside the normal scope of the physical sciences.
"Your question was is Dr. Israel aware of the methods used, the answer is yes. I can tell you he is not a proponent of mediumship, which is not surprising. Our discussions had to do with the historical aspects of the work which is his expertise."
What a coincidence you brought this up
In regards to the above post, I did hear back from Mr. Paul Israel I sent him a PDF copy of the White Paper I also asked him if he was aware of the method of historic verification as described in the postscript. He replied to me with a very gracious note which included this quote.
"I was not aware that the phone interview that I did regarding Edison was in connection with this mediumship. It is indeed highly unorthodox and not what I would consider a reliable method of verification." - Source private communication e-mail March 27, 2009.
A stark contrast to this quote.
"Regarding Dr. Israel, he is perhaps the most informed person in the world regarding Edison. He was aware of how this information was garnered." -- Source posted March 24, 2009.
The first half of your statement is true. The second half comes into serious question, in light of Mr. Israel's quote regarding this issue. I am now certain that if Dr. Israel had been aware of your methodology he would not participate. I shudder at the idea that someone of Dr. Israel's stature could have been misled, this is not responsible research.
This was a personal communication between myself and Mr. Israel, Bonnie has my e-mail address if she would like to see the thread for verification of authenticity I will do this by request.
The purpose of checking with historical experts is to verify the information and assumptions developed during documentary research. This was done in the current case and there was agreement on the material points of history. This research was done using normal documentary techniques.
Mediums are part and parcel of the Edison story. Claims have been made, and they are a part of the history, whether true or not. Three such claims were reported, which is appropriate in a paper such as this one.
Historical mediumship is not meant as a replacement for good document-based research. Of course this would not be right. However it is a useful approach when other avenues of research have failed to produce useful information. Most historical research is based in part on personal intuition. Historical mediumship simply represents another mind thinking about the problem. There is nothing wrong, immoral or unethical with this approach. The historian is still free to reject the findings, as one would if one followed any path that proved unfruitful. Historians routinely check themselves to be sure their own assumptions have not led them to false conclusions, so it is too with historical mediumship. We rigorously check the data and do not by any means accept it on faith.
Based on the direction this thread has taken, it is clear to me there is nothing more to discuss.
I understand a paper is being written on Edison and the Psychophone for the Skeptical Inquirer, and await its publication.
