Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

direct radio paranormal voice experimentation


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#16 OMPRDave

OMPRDave

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 563 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upton, Massachusetts
  • Interests:Family, fishing, hunting, camping, history, photography, poetry/writing, and last but not least, paranormal investigation

Posted 28 January 2009 - 10:02 AM

The Raudive responses I've heard over the net sounded like some over-the-top actor with a badly developed German accent and as if the person was reading them off a script. They were kind of comical, actually.

I scanned through the project report site and wound up with one major question; if they are using human technology to manipulate and amplify the "ether" that comprises the levels of awareness the dead scientists existed on, why didn't the scientists they spoke with ever explain what was happening on their end of the "telephone"? How did they know what was happening and why did only scientists that had shown interest in spirit communication come through? You would think that with the number of individuals who have died that there would have been as much a chance of contacting one of those scientists as there was Mark Twain or Attila the Hun.

As scientific as they made these reports sound, I honestly think the entire project was nothing more than a period-sensitive and elaborate hoax, much like telling people K-II meters are designed to and tuned to be more sensitive to spirits, or that Frank's Box can somehow allow spirits to manipulate bits and pieces of radio broadcasts. They took the technology of the time, came up with a good story, and did their best to cash in on it. Obviously it didn't do much good. With the advancement of much more complex technologies over the years since the Spiricom was tested, built and rebuilt, you would think that this type of technology would have progressed as well, with clearer and more refined results.

Of course at the end of their article they suggest the entities on the higher planes are probably thwarting our attempts at building such a device until mankind is at it's lowest points morally and spiritually, thereby overriding all their scientific beliefs and failures to produce exacting results by using a metaphysical explanation for the failure. That's equal to blaming God for the earthquake that killed your pet guinea pig.

Sorry, but I just can't buy into any of it. It's an entertaining story, but I think that's all it is.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer

#17 Retro

Retro

    Villager

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest, USA

Posted 28 January 2009 - 01:50 PM

That's equal to blaming God for the earthquake that killed your pet guinea pig.


LOL, Dave! Tell us what you really think. :)

Well, I didn't say I was a believer necessarily. I could say it was an elaborate hoax, but someone with electronic expertise could pull it off. There were many examples like this from the same period like the Zappers, Orgone generators, etc...

Thanks for looking at it a little more closely and giving me your opinion. Like I said a few posts back, after listening to several of them I was much more skeptical, too.

#18 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 28 January 2009 - 04:35 PM

I also lean toward the fraud aspect. In the 19th century it was snake oil, the 20th brought us seances and spititist movements, today we have technology and the shysters are right there giving us what we crave, for a price!

My problem with any of these devices is complexity. If we assume for a minute a spirit does exist and wants to communicate consider what it has to work with. Using the traditional idea of what a spirit is, consider the following. Likely it has no technological background, most people don't. If it is very old, modern technology didn't even exist when it passed. So it would likely be very limited in its knowledge of how modern devices even work.

Yet some claim spirits manipulate devices, they can assemble digital addresses in a manner to produce speech on an Ovilus. They place images of themselves on a TV screen, according to those in ITC work. How plausible does this sound, based on the knowledge a departed spirit likely has?

Take the idea of placing an image on a TV screen. First we know how television works. It is not a picture as we know it, rather it is a single dot scanning across the CRT. The intensity of this dot varies, in the case of color it varies as it energizes the three primary color phosphors on the CRT. The dot travels across the screen at a very precise rate to create a scan line. Then it jumps back and does the next line as it travels down the screen. 15,575 lines across every second, two interlaced frames of 30 sets of these horizontal scans every second. That is the frequency required for a TV picture to appear on your screen. Failure to maintain these precise frequencies results in a skewed picture or a rolling image. Oh and if it's a color picture we need to add in the color sync signal as well or the image will be just a mass of wandering color blobs on the screen.

Now consider if a spirit were to want to put its image directly on your TV screen it would have to alter the intensity of the video dot as it scanned across the screen, but not only just alter it, it would have to do this at precisely the right time to create an image, just like a TV camera does. Now I ask you, if a spirit had no technical background, how would it know when these precise times were? I would say a spirit desiring communication would stick to simpler methods, like speaking directly or even rapping on a wall.

I put the ghost boxes, Ovilus, and ITC in the same category; just a lot of hype. Evp is borderline, but at least with EVP there is generally no need to convert a signal. If it starts as an analog signal it can be detected as analog and heard as analog. But then there are those who take that to extremes, claiming spirits can directly encode a digital signal onto a recorder. While it may be remotely possible to cause this by affecting the analog amplifiers ahead of the digital converter, the claim is that the spirit directly imprints the converter.

But to do this a spirit has to set / clear specific bits that equate to an instantaneous voltage level, do this in the proper sequence without overshooting or undershooting any set of bits, provide clocking and read / write commands between each set of data, and pull this off several thousand times per second, depending on the sample rate of the recorder. Pretty talented for a spirit of a 19th century coal miner, I'd say!

Seems to me, if a spirit has something to say, it would just make its presence known in the old fashioned way; for years some claim to hear the voices directly or even telepathically. Even telepathy is more likely than manipulating electronics, after all even old spirits have minds / thoughts, or so the believers claim.

#19 Retro

Retro

    Villager

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest, USA

Posted 28 January 2009 - 07:31 PM

I put the ghost boxes, Ovilus, and ITC in the same category; just a lot of hype. Evp is borderline, but at least with EVP there is generally no need to convert a signal. If it starts as an analog signal it can be detected as analog and heard as analog. But then there are those who take that to extremes, claiming spirits can directly encode a digital signal onto a recorder. While it may be remotely possible to cause this by affecting the analog amplifiers ahead of the digital converter, the claim is that the spirit directly imprints the converter.


I have never once, in all my research of EVPs every heard anyone say such a thing. It is indeed the analog portion of the circuit that is supposed to be manipulated. If it wasn't, why the need for a microphone (or diode as some people suggest) at all? Some people claim that digital is better than analog because it is noisy due to the anti-aliasing. These are the same people that say that some material is need for the spirit to manipulate (and I already know what you think about that theory.)

Now if someone actually made that claim (manipulation of the converter directly) then it is obvious that that person was going so far against the grain of what an EVP is supposed to entail that they created their own theory out of whole cloth.

Of course, alot of people don't bother to think about how it works at all. Those that have, in my experience, have never claimed what you are saying above.

Your argument about TV is mostly valid except for one thing. If the ghost was expected to do it exactly as you suggested above, you would not need the feedback loop at all. Again, the theory there is that the spirit requires raw material to manipulate, it isn't creating it entirely by itself from nothing. So, the electron gun IS scanning and it is being gated already. Think of a tempest device. I can set an old manual tuning TV next to my computer monitor and can view the monitor on the TV. In fact, I HAVE done this. All that is missing is the sync information (rather the two sources are not synced together.) The claim in ITC is that spirits perform something similar to this. We can argue about the claims (and I am skeptical of it, but simply not as willing to just toss it completely out without investigation) but I get a sense that you haven't really even looked at the actual research at all and simply assume it must work the way you think it does. If I am genuinely wrong about that, then I genuinely apologize for the accusation. But your explanations for how you think ITC is claimed to work is quite far off from what is ACTUALLY claimed.

I am not so worried about 'looking like a sucker' for at least investigating it as thoroughly as I can before I dismiss it outright. If you are seeking the truth, you cannot just assume that you know what that 'truth' will look like. What if the enlightened other-side makes electronics look like child's play to them? Why would you assume it wouldn't? It's pretty obvious that they can do things we cannot do, so why would they be limited to human phsyics at all? Let's just take a step back and not be so rigid in what we THINK we know. Since we have yet to find any proof of spirits, I would tend to say we don't 'know' anything. And that means anything is possible.

#20 Retro

Retro

    Villager

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest, USA

Posted 28 January 2009 - 07:40 PM

I realize that I have been debating with you quite a bit, Caverat. Please know it is not meant with disrespect.

I truly want to find the truth and am not 'stuck' to any one 'opinion.' If it is all manufactured in the mind, so be it. But I can't help but feel like you have grown a little too rigid in what you think you know. This is unfortunate to me, because reading your background, knowledge, and skills shows me that you have a ton to offer to research. Just be careful not to loose the passion for the paranormal getting too tied up in the technological world or you will simply stop believing anything is possible outside of that world. I see it everyday in my colleagues and they warn me that I will become that way, too. I sincerely hope not.

Edited by Retro, 28 January 2009 - 07:41 PM.


#21 Retro

Retro

    Villager

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest, USA

Posted 28 January 2009 - 08:06 PM

Arrghh, I sidetracked myself about the TV version of ITC. The reason for the camera to be pointed at the television is that the ghost actually manipulates the feedback loop in a very mudane physical way. Way back when this form of ITC was developed, I believe vidicons were the normal imager used in cameras. If I remember correctly, the claim was that the spirit could deplete the charge in the imager screen at points on the screen. The charge formed on the screen itself was due to the feedback loop. A similiar claim is made with CCD imagers due to the charge built in the cells of the imager. I have never heard anything about using CMOS imagers.

One of the problems is that many modern ITC researchers are only scraping the surface of the original research. They see the experiment with a camera pointed at a TV and think that is all that is involved in it. But it could very well be that the vidicon imager was a very important piece of the puzzle (if it was not a complete hoax in the first place.)

Some reasons to be skeptical, of course is that supposedly even the TV feedback experiment was arrived at by speaking to a spirit through mediumship. It appears that this is the genesis of all ITC I have read about, with the exception of EVP which was started with Thomas Edison and his spiritphone.

#22 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 29 January 2009 - 09:16 AM

The problem with any form of feedback loop is that it drives the electronics into its nonlinear response area. When this happens there is no way the device will be able to accept any form of modulated (signal) input. It is akin to setting up a microphone as a PA system, adjusting the volume till it squeals (feedback) then trying to speak through it while this is going on. If you are heard at all, the voice will be unintelligible. Same when you create a video feedback loop. The black and white are the saturated areas, and the grey areas containing the intelligence are distorted or lost. True they may create some form of image, but good old paraedola can fill in the blanks.

#23 Retro

Retro

    Villager

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest, USA

Posted 29 January 2009 - 04:03 PM

The problem with any form of feedback loop is that it drives the electronics into its nonlinear response area. When this happens there is no way the device will be able to accept any form of modulated (signal) input. It is akin to setting up a microphone as a PA system, adjusting the volume till it squeals (feedback) then trying to speak through it while this is going on. If you are heard at all, the voice will be unintelligible. Same when you create a video feedback loop. The black and white are the saturated areas, and the grey areas containing the intelligence are distorted or lost. True they may create some form of image, but good old paraedola can fill in the blanks.


In a strictly electronic sense, of course you are correct, but the point is that the ghosts manipulate the raw material created by the feedback loop, thereby doing things with it that are not normal (it is called paranormal.) If it simply existed entirely on the electrical realm, we would hear EVP everytime the roadie accidentally pointed the mic at the speakers.

Pararedola is something important to consider of course. Not necessarily arguing. You are 100% correct in your observations of the electronic theory, but seem to keep missing the 'paranormal' part about it. So, I guess if one were to want to follow this route, they would have to find some way to separate out the garbage created by the feedback and only extract the abnormal.

We are probably getting into personal opinions now, but I don't think I can dismiss it simply because it doesn't make absolute sense in the physical electrical world. There are still a lot of things we don't understand even about THAT world. Thanks for putting up with me. :angry:

#24 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 30 January 2009 - 05:45 PM

I am still allowing for the paranormal aspect to enter in, but it must be in conjunction with the known physical laws which govern electronic devices. By this I mean that certain responses by electronics will occur under certain conditions, whether paranormal or not. To take the ITC experiment as an example, When electronics are driven to saturation or cutoff it becomes impossible to manipulate the signal in a controlled manner. We can attempt to do so but until it is brought back to its linear region the attempt will fail. The limitations of the equipment will see to that.

You stated that the spirit has to have a signal, a carrier if you will, in order for ITC to work. The problem though is by using feedback to generate this carrier the electronics are compromised. If the experiment was modified in a manner where a light source, or other energy beam was generated externally, passed onto a camera vidicon or CCD (that is not the issue here.) and an image were created. Let's go with the theory the spirit alters the charges on the vidicon for now. The difference is this is an open loop, the energy source, the spirit, the vidicon, camera, and monitor. No feedback loop. Thus no overdriven electronics, assuming the camera is properly set up.

In this manner I could say an image may in fact be something if one were received. Here, because no feedback is present, the camera and electronics could be assumed to be operating in a linear region and changes in charge level might well appear as an image on the screen. It would be theoreticallly possible for a spirit to do exactly as claimed, alter the charge and produce an image. But in a saturated or cutoff mode the electronics becomes unstable, the resultant image a matter of random noise patterns which will change not by a spirit, but by the charactristics of the vidicon or monitor phosphors.

#25 KyleK

KyleK

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 12 February 2009 - 01:15 PM

I've thought about this same thing. I'm going to try it.

#26 Grim Undertakings

Grim Undertakings

    Voted most likely to be a janitor in Highschool

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,654 posts

Posted 21 February 2009 - 11:42 AM

If we don't remain skeptical to these technologies, everything that comes down the pike will considered evidence. Without proper studies and taking EVERYTHING...including the human factors...into consideration before accepting these pieces of equipment we do NOTHING in furthering any scientific group in recognizing our efforts.


I know I seem to be your personal cheerleader lately, Dave, but I must say, once again, well said. Now let's see if I can find a cheerleader emoticon.... :lol:

:ghost:

Ah, there we go.

#27 Grim Undertakings

Grim Undertakings

    Voted most likely to be a janitor in Highschool

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,654 posts

Posted 21 February 2009 - 12:03 PM

All of my EVP recording sessions are done using realtime monitoring of the audio while the recording is being made. This allows me the ability to carry on two way voice conversations with anything that chooses to respond.


Why...have I never thought...about this before! Cave, I would love to hear about how you do this, your method that is, set up, etc.

Thanks! :ghost:

#28 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 22 February 2009 - 03:10 PM

Why...have I never thought...about this before! Cave, I would love to hear about how you do this, your method that is, set up, etc.

Thanks! :wow:


In my case I use the EVamP2 stereo mixer / preamp which has both line output and a monitor outpur for headphones. but you need not even go to that extent. Many cassette recorders provide a headphone jack, and on most the recorder sends the audio to that output when it is in the record mode. All you need to do is plug your headphones into the output while recording and you have realtime monitoring capability.

#29 Grim Undertakings

Grim Undertakings

    Voted most likely to be a janitor in Highschool

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,654 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 10:53 PM

Why...have I never thought...about this before! Cave, I would love to hear about how you do this, your method that is, set up, etc.

Thanks! :)


In my case I use the EVamP2 stereo mixer / preamp which has both line output and a monitor outpur for headphones. but you need not even go to that extent. Many cassette recorders provide a headphone jack, and on most the recorder sends the audio to that output when it is in the record mode. All you need to do is plug your headphones into the output while recording and you have realtime monitoring capability.


When I figured this out on my own, before the last investigation we did, I thought to myself, "Man, Cave's going to think I'm a moron. This was a pretty simple procedure".
Thanks for the info though!
:)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users