36 replies to this topic

[TheEVPman]

Over 30 yrs I've worked with EVP. Along the way I used different means to establish possible communications with those on the otherside.

Some of these things include a simple voice recorder. Other things included flash lights, EMF detectors, temp devices, and of course ghost boxes.

I designed a system using a couple ghost boxes, a radio set to a static channel and an open mic all of which is ran into a mixer. The mixer is then ran into a computer to record with.

The results I have been able to obtain are amazing to say the least. The voices are interactive and respond to my many questions. I've not only made contact with my possible loved ones on the otherside, but the loved ones for others as well.

I would like to know if anyone else has tried, or have simular equipment to what I'm using, and their experiences.

[deathrisesagain]

No i haven't used anything like that. I only have a camera, voice recorder and a k2 meter. I don't go investigating too often to be able to get the fancy stuff and have it actually pay off.

[deathrisesagain]

No i haven't used anything like that. I only have a camera, voice recorder and a k2 meter. I don't go investigating too often to be able to get the fancy stuff and have it actually pay off.

[TheLostProphet14]

Accually, Last year in my old house me and my friends had noticed some stange stuff going on. So, one day we decided to set up a camera in my living room and leave the house (we were the only ones at the house), and also set up a cell phone beside the camrea, that was recording. When we came back, upon reveiwing the footage and recording, we got something pretty interesting. You can hear me say "Ok! We're going to leave now!" then you can hear my friend and me talking. A second or two later you hear my front door open, then close. About 5 seconds after that, you can hear a very aggressive, and raspy voice yell at us that say "GET OUT!". When we reveiwed it, we were shocked. So, we decied to play it back on the cell phone and camrea in unison. On both you can hear the person yelling at us. It was terriyingly amazing. Then later that night we had a night time investigation and caught pictures of orbs above my friend, over my TV and some other things. But, the scariest thing we ever found in the pics was a face in my kitchen. And I even had a salt shaker thrown at me, off my stove.

[ColoradoParanormal]

TheEVPman, on 29 April 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

Over 30 yrs I've worked with EVP. Along the way I used different means to establish possible communications with those on the otherside.

Some of these things include a simple voice recorder. Other things included flash lights, EMF detectors, temp devices, and of course ghost boxes.

I designed a system using a couple ghost boxes, a radio set to a static channel and an open mic all of which is ran into a mixer. The mixer is then ran into a computer to record with.

The results I have been able to obtain are amazing to say the least. The voices are interactive and respond to my many questions. I've not only made contact with my possible loved ones on the otherside, but the loved ones for others as well.

I would like to know if anyone else has tried, or have simular equipment to what I'm using, and their experiences.

I've done multiple tests using a lot of what you're speaking in purely scientific methods and to be honest the results are less than adequate. Would it be possible for you to post your amazing results?

[TheEVPman]

Here is a link to a ITC I captured during a media event last Halloween. ITC and EVP both a long with other paranormal phenomenon have been well documented and studied. More so in Europe than in the US for sure.

Control questions and responses are a must when using these types of equipment.

http://prosinvestiga..._box_recordings

Edited by TheEVPman, 01 May 2012 - 04:16 PM.

[ColoradoParanormal]

My team and I have done exhaustive research into the Ghost/Franks box and have found quite a large number of procedural errors in it's design. The cyclic rate of Ghost box's is too long. Most have a standard of 2-5 stations per second, causing too long of a period between cycles allowing words to be captured. This creates a HUGE margin for data contamination.

We created a new type of beta ghost box simply for our own testing that has a cyclic rate of 75sps, which yields a constant static sound. NO discernible audible words or sounds is heard. Only static. Going of the theory that the Ghost box is generating a type of "white noise" that "spirits" can manipulate and speak in real time, this new cyclic rate almost eliminates any and all data corruption.

We've ran into another issue: No voices are heard. No noises. Rather, as our hypothesis stated, all we hear is simply static. This has been field tested in a large array across the United States with partners in other Universities abiding by our S.O.P. for investigations (Our current project and one we're in field testing at the moment which is working rather well) so we are able to trust the data.

  Cheers my friend


reason for edit: Grammatical errors irritate me lol

Edited by ColoradoParanormal, 01 May 2012 - 05:11 PM.

[Pastymancer]

Colorado, did your group do any work into assessing at what cycle frequency was the cut off for radio word interference?  I think I might put some time into assessing whether the degree of paralodiea (I'm not sure that is a word) changes with cycle frequency.

[Chrlzs]

So then...

For these various devices, where will I find:
- the reasoning behind their existence, for a start
- the technical specifications
- the testing methodology that was used before putting them into 'service', including things like controls, placebo effects, repeatability, verification against knowns, double blind tests, *etc.. (not to mention falsifiability, the null hypothesis, .. but let's start on the easy stuff)
- the procedures outlining correct use, calibration, etc.. and the requisite training and understanding of the fundamentals of whatever it is that is supposedly being measured

I'd really like to see this fleshed out properly.  If I asked an electrician, or a biochemist, or a plumber, or a gardener to provide some background on their testing equipment, such information would be quite easy to find.

I'm afraid I am finding it difficult to take this stuff seriously - are people actually *paying* for this?  Or is it just thought of as a bit of fun that does no harm?  I would strongly argue against the 'no harm' hypothesis..  

And I've got to say - hereby admitting my naivety on some matters paranormal - I have a horrible feeling that I know what a 'ghost box' is/does.. anyway, I shall not pre-judge and I greatly look forward to seeing a justification for it...  And some real hard, data!  Let's see if we can process it into information.. and then it's just a few short steps to knowledge and wisdom.

* If you think those types of issues are not applicable/testable in this field, then you need to think again.  And I'm happy to elaborate..

Edited by Chrlzs, 02 May 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[ColoradoParanormal]

Pastymancer, on 02 May 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Colorado, did your group do any work into assessing at what cycle frequency was the cut off for radio word interference?  I think I might put some time into assessing whether the degree of paralodiea (I'm not sure that is a word) changes with cycle frequency.

No, but that's an awesome thought! Thank you! We took the information gathered (what very little there is!) and purchased a Ghost Box, being we have to purchase this stuff is ridiculous, and figured that the cyclic rate is far to long and as I said, it created too much possibility for data contamination. So we in turn "upped" the cyclic rate. By doing so and the exhaustive research done with this modified box, we've received absolutely NO responses nor confirmation these do what they claim.

Chrlzs, on 02 May 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

So then...

For these various devices, where will I find:
- the reasoning behind their existence, for a start
- the technical specifications
- the testing methodology that was used before putting them into 'service', including things like controls, placebo effects, repeatability, verification against knowns, double blind tests, *etc.. (not to mention falsifiability, the null hypothesis, .. but let's start on the easy stuff)
- the procedures outlining correct use, calibration, etc.. and the requisite training and understanding of the fundamentals of whatever it is that is supposedly being measured

I'd really like to see this fleshed out properly.  If I asked an electrician, or a biochemist, or a plumber, or a gardener to provide some background on their testing equipment, such information would be quite easy to find.

I'm afraid I am finding it difficult to take this stuff seriously - are people actually *paying* for this?  Or is it just thought of as a bit of fun that does no harm?  I would strongly argue against the 'no harm' hypothesis..  

And I've got to say - hereby admitting my naivety on some matters paranormal - I have a horrible feeling that I know what a 'ghost box' is/does.. anyway, I shall not pre-judge and I greatly look forward to seeing a justification for it...  And some real hard, data!  Let's see if we can process it into information.. and then it's just a few short steps to knowledge and wisdom.

* If you think those types of issues are not applicable/testable in this field, then you need to think again.  And I'm happy to elaborate..

Right there with ya!   Dunno if you read my entire post above but, after delving deeper into this "technology" we've been able to conclude this tech yields no positive data.

[Chrlzs]

I'll wait...


In case the intent may have been missed - EVPMan, can you supply us with your methodologies for the equipment you use?  I won't be hinting further about what I would expect - suffice to say that in my post above there were a LOT of hints about what would be *necessary* to be remotely convincing.

Lest you wonder, I've worked in the sciences and know how to perform *proper* experiments and investigations, both formal and informal..  And yes, I know it's the interweb therefore that claim is worthless - but I'll let my words do the talkin'...

If anyone else wishes to chime in with their methodical and comprehensive explanation of how and why these things 'work', and what sort of approach would be necessary to make the data useful (and verifiable), I'll be delighted to listen politely.. but ever so carefully.  

[orangepeaceful79]

ColoradoParanormal, on 01 May 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

My team and I have done exhaustive research into the Ghost/Franks box and have found quite a large number of procedural errors in it's design. The cyclic rate of Ghost box's is too long. Most have a standard of 2-5 stations per second, causing too long of a period between cycles allowing words to be captured. This creates a HUGE margin for data contamination.

We created a new type of beta ghost box simply for our own testing that has a cyclic rate of 75sps, which yields a constant static sound. NO discernible audible words or sounds is heard. Only static. Going of the theory that the Ghost box is generating a type of "white noise" that "spirits" can manipulate and speak in real time, this new cyclic rate almost eliminates any and all data corruption.

We've ran into another issue: No voices are heard. No noises. Rather, as our hypothesis stated, all we hear is simply static. This has been field tested in a large array across the United States with partners in other Universities abiding by our S.O.P. for investigations (Our current project and one we're in field testing at the moment which is working rather well) so we are able to trust the data.

  Cheers my friend


reason for edit: Grammatical errors irritate me lol

OK so then if what I am reading is correct - you are postulating that a lot of the "positives" with regards to communications with the other side that other investigators have yielded are really false positives that are the byproduct of the long default cyclic rate in the original ghost box?  Where do the false positives come from - that is what are they then?  Radio noise that our brains can sculpt into audio-pareidolia?  And that when you upped the sps rate you essentially took out any slack where the false positives could occur?  

CP - in your opinion are there any methods of gathering evidence that are scientifically sound?

[CakeOrDeath]

Suggesting that you have proof that you can interract with people's deceased loved ones is a powerful claim.  You do realize if you use "radio waves" as the basis for any of your "whitenoise" then your samples are contaminated and the "voices" are in fact "voices" from all sorts of worldly things like ...umm radio stations, baby monitors, etc etc.

Can you post some audio with you asking questions and the answers coming in a timely fashion and clearly answering said question?  If you do, please do not include visible captions as to what you "think" they are responding with?

[CakeOrDeath]

omg I was going to apologize as I just noticed the link to your "evidence" then I listend to the clip...rofl.  Peanut Butter, hehe the sounds coming from the "radio static" sounded like that even before you asked the question.  Can I vaguely make out something that sounds roughly like peanut butter?  Ya, it's abit of a stretch, but you should have said "what's your favorite food"  Saying the word we are supposed to hear is the same effect as adding the prompt after showing what we "should hear"

I'm sorry that's really ridiculous.  And to think peolpe like this give hope to desperate folks that they can talk to their dead family members.  "Dad I miss you, do you still blame me for the car accident?"...."pea....nuuu,....burder"

[ColoradoParanormal]

orangepeaceful79, on 03 May 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

OK so then if what I am reading is correct - you are postulating that a lot of the "positives" with regards to communications with the other side that other investigators have yielded are really false positives that are the byproduct of the long default cyclic rate in the original ghost box?  Where do the false positives come from - that is what are they then?  Radio noise that our brains can sculpt into audio-pareidolia?  And that when you upped the sps rate you essentially took out any slack where the false positives could occur?  

CP - in your opinion are there any methods of gathering evidence that are scientifically sound?

You're correct. The result of the low cyclic rate in the Ghost/Franks box created an Audio-type pareidolia. By "upping" the cyclic rate as you said, we did in-fact nullify this and the result (again, tested by us and other teams from other universities in the field) yielded absolutely no responses. Just static.