Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo
- - - - -

Looking for Ideas Here


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#16 no1plumbrr

no1plumbrr

    Would let the taxpayers foot the bill to go to a GV convention

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayetteville, nc
  • Interests:DENISE
    ghosts, aliens, and anything crazy.

    FEARS: clowns and now BEP, thanks guys you rock ! ;)

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:36 AM

cool, thank you !!!
In love with an awesome woman
SHALOM my friends !

#17 greg_dragonlvr

greg_dragonlvr

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Illinois
  • Interests:Camping, wilderness adventures, ancient engineering, modern physics and electronics, martial arts and native cultures.

Posted 14 November 2013 - 09:19 AM

Is there currently any research into detecting brain wave activity (disembodied variety) ongoing? If one is predisposed to accept that a paranormal event will somehow alter or interact with emf, then it may be a step further that the entity causing that disturbance still may have detectable brain waves that may be recognized within the acceptable standards of brain activity.

There are several sites that have plans and schematics of portable devices that I might pursue if this side venture is not well explored. If anything resembling a real pattern can be captured, it may assist in choosing a direction for further research.

Can't Fall Off the Floor


#18 greg_dragonlvr

greg_dragonlvr

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Illinois
  • Interests:Camping, wilderness adventures, ancient engineering, modern physics and electronics, martial arts and native cultures.

Posted 14 November 2013 - 09:25 AM

This is a question that may be ignorant, but is analysis of evp's done in reverse just a parlor trick? Or can it be legitamized as much as a recording played in standard time line?

Can't Fall Off the Floor


#19 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,559 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 15 November 2013 - 01:58 PM

Reverse EVPs is a parlor trick. Consider what constitutes a voice pattern. It is a fundamental frequency followed by the various nuances that give it its pattern. Sort of like the "echo" which follows a sound. Now if you reverse this then the echo comes first.... How can one have an echo before the original sound? This is a bit oversimplified but it makes the point, in fact there are various tests which are applied to any speech pattern that is used in analysis of EVP. It hgas to do with both voacalizations and fricatives which make up human speech. The fricatives follow the vocalizations since they are formed by the tongue and teeth, and obviously you can't have them without the vocalizations which comprise the energy to form them. But you certainly can have vocalizations without fricatives. Reverse EVP if they actually existed would be just the opposite. But that is an impossible sceanario.

Actually current work now is pointing toward EVP being a form of EMF plus an audible component. The issue is becoming though just how does a spirit create an EMF representation of speech, and how it can "hear" our audible sounds since it lacks the physical body to react to the changing air pressure which is sound as we know it. This research is pointing toward invalidating virtually all EVP captured using conventional recorders unless an inductive pickup was employed. And that rules out all voice recorders since I know of none which don't use an electret mic. None use inductive mics......

#20 greg_dragonlvr

greg_dragonlvr

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Illinois
  • Interests:Camping, wilderness adventures, ancient engineering, modern physics and electronics, martial arts and native cultures.

Posted 17 November 2013 - 01:11 AM

Have had suspicions for a while and as I haven't had a Faraday's Cage big enough for a house, have tended not to use recorders except for running commentary. There were several occasions where I have used two recorders, one with the microphones disabled. As expected, no results on either recorder. Popping the recorder in a dead microwave produced null results as well even as other recorders produced possible "evps". It is to ambiguous to produce any usable evidence.

Can't Fall Off the Floor


#21 Ravus Aranea

Ravus Aranea

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Appalachian Mountains
  • Interests:All things paranormal.All religious beliefs and practices. Superstitions.Collecting books. Writing.Creating with my hands, what my mind's eye imagines.

Posted 28 July 2014 - 06:14 PM

My question is can a living human manipulate these popular devices used in paranormal research? If so... how do they do it ..........what is the science behind that..........science does not even understand all that the human mind can do.......much less whoever and whatever  lurks beyond the living....figure that out and the rest might not be so mysterious......premonitions are fairly hard to fake if they come true...where does that information come from...how do we tap into that fluidity? It's there......something allows the ability......it is like a hidden stream of information that at times , certain people can tap into....wherever that layer of consciousness lies.......that is where the answers are.  Maybe it's in junk D.N.A. or in the recesses of all that gray matter we do not use.... but it is there.



#22 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,559 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 30 July 2014 - 07:48 PM

I would sooner believe in ESP than I would a spirit box.  Why?  Because as you know we don't understand how ESP might work and how the mind could generate and receive such signals.  At this point it is still an unknown.

 

But when it comes to electrnics we have a very good handle on that and what would be required to interact with it.  It has been attempted to utilize common EMF equipment to interface with the mind directly and except for very limited applications. (EEG machines for example) we have found no correlation between EMF and ESP / psychic activity.  Thus I discount things like spirit boxes and similar devices.  But as for one mind directly receiving from another the jury is still out on that one.



#23 Aesalon

Aesalon

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tall Corn, USA

Posted 01 August 2014 - 12:53 PM

I am not sure what I can input specifically into the topic, except to say that we are in agreement that some new methodology needs to be applied to standard investigation formats. Our leadership team thought about this question for quite a while after years of "Wash, Rinse, Repeat" investigations. Our response  was to basically strip everything down and start from scratch. Trying to remove bias and conditioned response from our observations and take each bit of data on its own merit in hopes that the collected information would lead us to a testable hypothesis. 

 


-Stephen G.

Co-founder of Fly By Night Paranormal Investigations.

Based in Omaha, NE with a chapter in Dallas /Ft. Worth, TX. FBN is primarily a paranormal research team with a focus on classical 'haunting phenomena.' 

Please visit us on Facebook: https://www.facebook...NightParanormal


#24 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,559 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 03 August 2014 - 10:30 AM

I can agree with that approach.  Much oif what has been claimed has been proven to be mis-identification, artifacts created by the equipment and lack of proper use, and just outright wishful thinking on the part of those who want to believe.  Which isn't to say ALL old results are false.

 

We need to apply logic and science to the methods we use.  Use existing equipment, asuming it is scientific and not just some scam, to detect what it was designed for.  Even KII meters can detect EM Fields (Although the issue of false positives may be problematic!)

 

But things like spirit boxes, Oviluses, and other so-called investigative devices are pointless.  We know how they work, and also that what causes them to react is natural.  So let's relegate them to the same areas as the Magic 8 Ball and similar party games.   They might be fun to play with at times but are of no value as research tools.

 

Instead, use what does work, and along the way develop new methods / equipment.  Not saying all the new methods will work either.  We test them, and based on findings either retire them as well or adapt them to our use if they pan out.



#25 wipsi

wipsi

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts

Posted 05 August 2014 - 12:11 PM

Here is something that might be 'new' to people:

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



#26 Geomagman

Geomagman

    Member

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Albuquerque, NM
  • Interests:Paranormal, PSI, PK R&D
    Geophysics, especially in relationship to geomagnetism
    Chronobiology
    Hacking the brain, improving mental performance
    The Afterlife

Posted 17 September 2014 - 02:25 PM

Wipsi posted a link about using REG's (random event generators) used by the Paranormal Research Group in investigating haunted houses and poltergist activity.  The extensive report summarizes eight years of research using a specialized RNG (random number generator) to provide data for probablity analysis.  As with most scientific papers, unless you have a good statistical background, this probably didn't mean much.  However, the results show promising evience that there was indeed some strange happenings in the 15 locations they tested.

 

As I've used the identical equipment and actually have 5 different REG's I can tell you right now that if they really knew how to use these devices, they would have gotten superior results.  For one thing, these devices are very small and their range of detection of a person or something that goes bump in the night, seems to work much better on a fast sampling rate.  This group used a rate of 1 reading a second.  That sampling rate should have been much higher, like 500 to 1000 samples per second.  Why?  Imagine you are recording bird songs.  If you ran your recording at 1cps, what do you think you would get?  Anything sounding like a bird song at all?  Sound waves are much higher and therefore need a higher response rate.  At such a poor sampling rate, it was surprising they got any results at all! 

 

Another thing you need to realize is that when you are recording the output of a REG or RNG you are actually measuring distortions of randomness.  Ideally, with no outiside influences, you should have even amounts of the digits 0 or 1,  Think about coin flipping.  If you flip a coin enough times, it should be a 50/50 relationship between heads and tails.  So, an RNG is a very fast coin flipper and measures randomness in a small area.

 

What is really interesting is that when there are no people involved in coin flipping, you have very small changes in randomness.  Yet when people literally or are mentally trying to influence coin flips, there is about a 2% variation in chance.  It is not just coin flipping either.  It is well documented that REG's are easily influenced by human attention.  Check out the extensive testing and documentation done by the Global Conciousness Project if you find this of interest.

 

Back to finding a better way to use REG's to produce evidence for your research.

 

1.  Use a customized REG that translates greater changes in randomness by changing both the intensity and colors of a visual display.  Think of a portable lamp you can place anywhere you want and it only changes in brightness and colors that match the size of the disturbance.  For example, if the randomness  in your hardware driven RNG equals 1 chance in 300, you get a dim yellow light.  It increases in brightness until it gets to be a chance ratio of 1 to 5000 and then it switches colors to orange, and progresses up the scale until the odds are millions to 1 that you have a very amazing response.

2.  You space the lamps out throughout the test area.  You of course record the whole scene with a high quality video camera.

3.  Alternatively, you could use low cost PC's and a REG that uses a gieger counter to detect randomness.  The advantage here is that you have an audio reading and digital reading.  It might be possible to use ewer devices than the lighting devices.

 

In any case, you might be able to get a visual or audio record of movement by a person or paranormal source.

 

I have some of the lamps but they are the first generation and require AC power and a little on the expensive side.  I'm hoping to design and develop more inexpensive battery powered lamps. I don't use my devices for ghost hunting but rater conciousness research, so I'm not sure what effect, if any, a spirit would have on them.

 

Geomagman



#27 wipsi

wipsi

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts

Posted 19 September 2014 - 07:39 AM

Thank you for your comments. Here are a few comments to your points:

 

A) Sampling Rate

1. The sampling rate of 1/sec and 5/sec have been used in recent studies done by Caswell et al.

Caswell et al (2014) JCER 5(3) 195-214

Caswell et al (2014) JCER 5(4) 309-330

 

So, I am not to concerned about the sample rate. Yes, 5/sec would have been better. But 1/sec has been used in published papers. Also, please note that we started this work in 2006 as exploratory work and will certainly continue the study and refine the methods.

 

2. Higher sampling rates have been published in previous literature and have shown mixed results. Such as in:

Bierman (1996) JSE 10(3) 363-373

Blasband (2000) JSE 14(2) 195-216

Gerding et al (2002) JSE 17 3-16

 

3. The calculation of the Stouffer Z is sum of z divided by square root N (number of REG runs). So, even if you used the higher sampling rate and found a higher deviation the high number of REG runs (N) would 'adjust' for this. Also, effect sizes and measurements of uncertainty are calculated and based on N.

 

4. I would certainly be interested in seeing the data you have collected. Perhaps we could collaborate on a project using your data and our data?

 

B) In regards to not knowing how to use these devices...

I think your comment of us not knowing how to use these devices is unfair. We are very familiar on how to use them. We are currently collaborating with some of the top researchers in the field. In addition, we have data from running two of the same devices at the same time. Additionally we have started running two of the same devices plus a photon based REG.

 

C) How REGs work.

Your basic explanation is correct. To take it a step further, the Psyleron REG 1s work via electron tunneling effects within two field effect transistors (FETs). The resultant voltage is then converted into digital data and goes through a XOR process.

 

D) REGs Influenced by Attention.

This is correct. However, they seem to also be influenced when people don't pay attention as has also been shown by the Global Consciousness Project team as well as some of the studies I have already referenced above and the following:

Nelson et al (1996) JSE 10(1) 111-143

Nelson et al (1998) JSE 12(3) 424-454

 

Emotion has also been shown to influence them with and without attention (some references above) and:

Lumsden-Cook (2005) JSPR 69 1-17

 

We also have a paper in review for publication that show focused attention followed by non-focused attention plays a role in influencing REGs by Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis (RSPK) agents, otherwise known as poltergeist agents.

 

E) Better ways to use REGs to produce evidence

I am always looking to find better ways to gather data to evaluate it appropriately. I am curious on how you would critically and statistically evaluate what you proposed in #1 and #2?

 

We also have a RAD-10 Geiger counter and data logging software, which has been used on investigations. I also have the software to generate random numbers with this device. However, using just background radiation produces a low number of counts per minute and thereby a low sampling rate. I think you may have to use a low level radiation output device (such as a fire/smoke alarm) to get enough cpms to make this useful. It is interesting you brought this up because we have seen correlations between with either very high and/or very low background cpm counts when people have had experiences and/or other significant readings on other equipment.

 

Again, thanks for your comments and perhaps we could collaborate on a project. I would also be very interested in reviewing any of the data you have collected.

 

wipsi@hotmail.com






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users