Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

Paranormal Tech - Our Message Board of the Month!


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Jeff Belanger

Jeff Belanger

    Village Elder

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Massachusetts USA

Posted 17 September 2014 - 10:53 AM

Dear Ghostvillagers,

 

Technology is so omnipresent today that we sometimes don’t even see it. Yesterday I was walking back to my house after dropping my daughter off at the bus stop, and I was thinking about all of the signals swirling around me and through me at that very instant: wifi, cell phones, cameras, bluetooth, radios, television, cable, CBs (remember them?), and much more. Each have signals traversing the electromagnetic spectrum and filling our world with unfathomable amounts of data and information 24x7. We can’t see it, but check your smartphone and you know it’s there.

 

 

In paranormal research, we use all of the tools at our disposal. We always have. So it’s no surprise we’re creating and adapting technology daily to try and communicate with whatever kind of intelligent energies might be hovering around us. Though I’ve worked with many different tools and gadgets, I’m the first to admit that I don’t fully understand what is coming through. Yes, I’ve listened to devices that scan through radio waves at quick intervals and heard what sounded like words, but to my skeptical mind it just feels like I’m trying to make order out of chaos. I’m not sold.

 

 

kinect.jpgThen there are other devices that intrigue me. For the last year I’ve been experimenting with Digital Dowsing’s Kinect camera. This camera is designed to look for human movement and map it into software. I understand this a little better because I own an Xbox Kinect and have played games with my daughter where the camera maps us into the game so we can interact.

 

 

So when this camera maps a figure into the software that I don’t see with my eye… I suddenly get very curious. In a year of using it at over a dozen locations, only twice has something been captured. Is this proof? No, it’s not. But some of this technology is making the evidence a lot more compelling.

This month we’re going to explore some of the paranormal technology that’s been developed and used for spirit contact. We’d love to have you weigh in in our message board of the month!

 

 

Supernaturally yours,

Jeff Belanger
Mayor of Ghostvillage.com
Twitter: @THEJeffBelanger
Facebook: Jeff Belanger
YouTube: www.youtube.com/legendtripping


Have you read these books?
Posted Image
There will be a quiz...

#2 wipsi

wipsi

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 11:53 AM

Data-logging systems, such as the DEAD system our group uses, are becoming more prevalent.

www.paranormalresearchgroup.com/d-e-a-d-system.html

 

Something that might be relatively new to the ghost hunting community is the use of Random Event/Number Generators during investigations of haunted locations and RSPK agents. Our group has been collecting Random Event/Number Generator at a variety of reportedly haunted locations.

www.paranormalresearchgroup.com/images/PDFs/Eight_Years_of_FieldREG_Research.pdf

 

Other research organizations have also been doing this as well with interesting results. The References section in the above paper link lists some of those.



#3 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 18 September 2014 - 11:07 AM

Tech opens numerous possibilities but also brings issues.

 

Consider the case stated on the PRG website showing the dark shadow and the accompanied changes in the EM Field.  At first read it looks rather impresive.  Their EMF monitors display a drop in the field on one axis with an accompanied increse on another.  At the same time the subject feels a coldness, a picture is taken showing the shadow.  The EMF returns to normal in a few seconds, a second image is made, and no shadow is seen.

 

One thing has been overlooked.  The camera angle is slightly different between the images.  Thus it is apparent rhe camera is handheld, not fixed.    Secondly, shadowing indicates that flash was being used for both images.  This raises the first point.  Cameras using electronic flash create EM Fields.   And this camera was moved slightly, being repositioned while the flash was recharging itself.  The possibility exists that this movement, not anything paranormal might account for the changing EM Field.

 

The shadow itself has all indications of something partially covering the flash resulting in a narrow field of flash.  This is often seen in many pictures taken on investigations.  So it might be explainable

 

The cold feeling is something we can't directly address here; we weren't there.  Air current?  Environmental issue?  Or maybe just a "feeling"?

 

Point is, even with all the technology we have only one piece of subjective evidence present, the "feeling".  The shadow is present, but follows patterns related to explainable factors.  And the EMF may be the result of the technology, it wouldn't be there without the increased use of tech.  I am not knocking tech; in fact I probably use more of it than most.  But I am pointing out that its use must be carefully considered and monitored when it is done.  And even more effort must be placed on debunking evidence obtained when technology is present..


Edited by CaveRat2, 18 September 2014 - 11:10 AM.


#4 wipsi

wipsi

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 19 September 2014 - 09:08 AM

CaveRat2-

 

All excellent points.

 

A few comments:

1. The camera was held by a person and pictures were taken ASAP when the person reported the experience. So, the angle was different. It is what it is with that limitation and I certainly acknowledge that. The point of the example was to show how time stamped data-logging can be useful in correlating various types of data and/or personal experiences.

 

2. The camera and/or flash would not have affected the equipment. It was more than three feet away and it would have to had produced a massive EMF to affect the equipment being as far away as it was. Another limitation of tech is apparent here...sensitivity of the sensors, strength of field and distance.

 

3. We did play around a lot with covering the flash and a few other ideas a professional photographer suggested. We could not recreate the effect. That doesn't mean it is paranormal. It just means at the time we could not reproduce it with that camera and in that location. The professional photographer did some other analysis on the image and concluded that there was 'something' there. However, he has no idea what that something was. Finger over flash was suggested, but could not be reproduced. So, I agree it could be explainable. A lot of 'evidence' out there could be explainable.

 

4. Feeling cold. The interesting thing is we did have temperature data-logging at the same time. There was no change during this experience. We have also investigated other locations where there was a 'feeling' of temperature change with no corresponding change noted in the ambient air temperature. In one case there was a 'cold feeling' by an investigator and the only thing that correlated with it temporally and spatially was a 10 fold increase from 30 ions/cm3 to 300 ions/cm3 in the positive ion count. It returned to normal after the 'feeling' went away.

 

Thanks again for your comments. Hopefully what I provided above gives some clarification on some of the issues you pointed out.

 

Take care,



#5 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 20 September 2014 - 08:32 AM

My point is not to discount the evidence; rather to show just how involved a thorough analysis can get.  Too many simply jump to the paranormal without first looking at other possibilities.   I certainly recognize the limitations of any analysis done via a single online posting; my comments relate only to possibilities, not proven conditions that were present.  To adress your responses above consider;

 

1.  I agree, time stamping data is beneficial in analysis, otherwise it becomes difficult to correlate multiple data into a single event.

 

2. Three feet away is not that far when it comes to EM Fields.  I pesonally have demonstrated that a camera flash can and often does radiate EMF from the flyback type of voltage converter used to charge the flash capacitor to its firing potential.  I have tested several cameras in my lab and detected these fields. Under lab conditions I have measured EMF of 1 uV / meter at a distance of 15 feet.  This is more than adequate for bleed over into a high gain amplifier used for EVP work.  Since EMF follows the inverse square law related to field strength versus distance it can be shown that at 3 feet a signal significantly higher could be present.   I would also point out that some camers ARE better shielded and may not produce this strong of a field.  Point is, unless your particular camera has been tested and verified, it must be assumed that this possibility exists until proven otherwise.

 

3.  I can agree here.    One of the difficultues we all face when attempting to recreate an event is getting everything exactly the same.  This becomes even more problematic when something appears after the fact and we go back and try to duplicate everything as it was.  Been there myself many times!  

 

4.  Which leaves us with "feelings".  The benefit of the data logging becomes apparent here.  You state there was no physical temperature change, only the perception of change.  This is significant in that one can deduce that the subject's perception of change was affected.  Furthermore, the measurement of ion density coincided with a change of perception, thus we might conclude that one may well have caused the other.  Hard data would support this finding.   The unknown aspect here is what caused the ion density change?  One factor comes to mind, and this is purely hypothetical,  might the discharge of the flashtube in the camera have ionized the air around it in some way?  And could this in some way have formed a shadow on the image?   Such a condition, if it existed, might also account for the jump in ion density.   Just a thought, but it's things like this that keep the field interesting.....



#6 wipsi

wipsi

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 21 September 2014 - 07:17 PM

All good points again!

 

I went back and looked at the data again from that investigation that the example was taken from and there were no other times where there were changes in EMF and/or other data and the same investigator with the same camera took numerous other pictures. So, hopefully that helps somewhat more rule out the camera and flash affecting the EMF reading.

 

A quick point of clarification - the ion count data was given as an example of something that happened at another location during a different investigation. There was no change in the ion counts during the investigation with the picture anomaly. Sorry, I should have made those two situations clearer. But your hypothesis seems reasonable and possible. It is just very difficult to rule out everything.



#7 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 22 September 2014 - 01:03 PM

Multiple readings definitely helps discount EMF contamination.  That is why we kep data and compare results.  As I said earlier I was providing options that might explain something, there is no way I can say conclusively what was there since I wasn't present and don't have access to all the data available from all sources.

 

And you are correct, without having all information it becomes difficult to rule out everything.    All we can do is rule ut what can be explained, the rest gives us something to investigate the next time, hopefully with additional data that may make things a bit clearer.



#8 mcmillen67

mcmillen67

    Member

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 28 September 2014 - 08:13 AM

what are ya'lls feelings on some of the new apps for smartfones/tablets?  Is there any out there that ya'll are using that is giving you good results?  Most of my tech is pretty old school (K-II, Tri-field Natural, gausmaster, etc.)



#9 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 30 September 2014 - 09:22 AM

The problem with the use of phones and tablets as evidence gathering devices is the quality of the device hardware and its bandwidth.   Consider the sensors needed to collect data, EMF in particular.   A phone has no real need to collect EMF over a wide band in general use.  However it does have a receiver for its designed frequency spectrum.which picks up radio transmissions. (Bluetooth, WiFi, etc.)   Now most people would never use a phone as an EMF meter so why would the manufacturer put a broadband receiver in it?   Answer is they wouldn't.
 

But along comes a ghost hunter who wants an app to monitor EMF.  So they use the phones RF receiver as an EMF monitor.   And to an extent it works!   It gives a reading of field strength which can be displayed.  And the ghost hunters think it is an EMF monitor.    But consider, the receiver was only designed for a narrow part of the EMF spectrum.  As such it only works over that narrow region.  The rest of the bands are ignored, including portions where EMF can disturb equipment being used elsewhere.  So how good of a job can a phone do as a monitoring tool?  Answer is, not much.

 

Same goes for their use as an audio recorder or camera.  The audio recording is of low quality, highly compressed, and likely not using a non-lossy format.  Which makes it useless for gathering EVP evidence.   The camera has a very small lens which gathers little light.  While they can take decent pictures, they can't equal the capability of a good camera with a much larger optical zoom versus the electronic zoom used in most phones.

 

In summary, a phone is best used to keep in touch with your friends.  If you want a camera, use a camera.  If you need a recorder, use a good stereo recorder.  And for EMF measurements, use a good EMF meter.  (Not a KII, but THAT'S another issue!)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users