EVP Fact vs Fiction

[Am_I_Psychic]

There is a debate among those who believe in EVP and those who don't believe. The truth is somewhere in the middle of those two viewpoints.

There have been many instances where I have not heard things that others hear. I have 100% hearing in both ears and am in perfect health. So the question then becomes is something wrong with me or are these people wrong? I think what oftentimes takes place is wishful thinking and/or a mild form of mass hysteria. I have seen this myself on more than one occasion where I am surrounded by a group of people who see and hear things around every corner. There have even been times when one person is whispering and someone on the other side of the room hears a snippet of the whispering and claims they are hearing a ghost. It's patently ridiculous. A possible explanation for the delusion of people is "auditory pareidolia", which is created when the brain incorrectly interprets random patterns as being familiar patterns.

Having said that, I once heard unmistakable voices recorded on a digital recorder that were not heard in the moment. The incredible part was that I was there and I didn't hear anything in the moment, but when I played back the recording I heard a distinct voice that would be clearly audible to anyone who listened.

Most of what people "hear" in EVP recordings are just these random patterns appearing familiar, meaning sounds that are a bit like words and then people's wishful thinking takes over. The truth is that genuine EVP is rare!

I wish people would understand that they want to hear things so they hear things. If more people entered the world of the paranormal with a skeptical but open mind then perhaps those who believe wouldn't be so marginalized. What do you think?

[TonopahRick]

I think you're right about people hearing what they want to hear.

[Goodnite]

I also agree. I am very surprised what is translated from what I hear as random noise.

[Emma_Acid]

There is a debate among those who believe in EVP and those who don't believe. The truth is somewhere in the middle of those two viewpoints.

Science has nothing to do with belief. If something exists it can be measured and tested. If it doesn't, it can't.

Show me the empirical evidence for EVP and we'll talk.

[toast]

Also Raudive did years of experimentation and testing on EVP's and was often able to carry on conversations with these

voices. It's worth pointing out that Raudive was using recording equipment not communication equipment.

Raudive?

... during the Nazi occupation he (Raudive) expressed deeply sympathetic views towards national socialist ideology in his

publication For the culture of life. Problems of the Modern Day Man. There he spoke about the importance of the racial

purity and health. http://latvianhistory.com/2013/09/20/konstantins-raudive-the-latvian-who-discovered-the-electronic-voice-phenomenon/

Edited August 7, 2015 by toast

[Am_I_Psychic]

Raudive?

His political views have nothing to do with scientific testing or the paranormal.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Am_I_Psychic

[Am_I_Psychic]

As well, there are many Phd's, published academic papers and universities involved in parapsychology. I'll give you a quick and short list of a few papers, Phd's and universities

1.) http://link.springer...1007/BF00732509

2.) http://www.amsciepub...journalCode=pms

3.) http://psycnet.apa.o...ls/bul/115/1/4/

4.) http://psycnet.apa.o.../psp/100/3/407/

Phd. Scientists in parapsychology

1.) Dean Radin Phd

2.) Daryl Bem Phd

3.) Barry Taff Phd

4.) Julia Mossbridge Phd

5.) Russell Targ Phd

6.) Jeffrey Mishlove Phd

Universities

1.) The University of Edinburgh - Scotland

2.) The University of Northampton - England

3.) The University of Freiburg - your home country of Germany

It took me 30 seconds in a Google search to find this information for you.

I suggest that in the future you do some research before you make proclamations as if you know what you're talking about

Edited August 7, 2015 by Am_I_Psychic

[toast]

As well, there are many Phd's, published academic papers and universities involved in parapsychology. I'll give you a

quick and short list of a few papers, Phd's and universities

1.) http://link.springer...1007/BF00732509

2.) http://www.amsciepub...journalCode=pms

3.) http://psycnet.apa.o...ls/bul/115/1/4/

4.) http://psycnet.apa.o.../psp/100/3/407/

1. Author is Dean Radin, so see below.

2. One of the principal investigators was Dean Radin, so see below.

3. Where and by whom exactly has this study been peer-reviewed?

4. Where and by whom exactly has this study been peer-reviewed?

Phd. Scientists in parapsychology .

Something is wrong with your reading comprehension because I asked for Phds in parapsychology and not for Phds

who also work in the field of parapsychology, but anyway:

1.) Dean Radin Phd

Dean Radin is a Phd in psychology and not in parapsychology.

Furthermore:

Radin's ideas and work have been criticized by scientists and philosophers skeptical of paranormal claims.In

addition, the review of Radin's first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Nature charged that Radin

ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations

for parapsychological data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Radin

2.) Daryl Bem Phd

Daryl Bem is a Phd in social psychology and not in parapsychology.

3.) Barry Taff Phd

Barry Taff is a Phd in psychophysiology and not in parapsychology.

4.) Julia Mossbridge Phd

Julia Mossbridge is a Phd in Neuroscience and not in parapsychology.

5.) Russell Targ Phd

Targ recieved a Bacjelor of Science in physics, so he isnt a Phd at all but at least not a Phd in parapsychology.

Furthermore:

Targ's work on remote viewing has been characterized as pseudoscience and has also been criticized for lack of rigor

// A number of scientific reviews of the SRI (and later) experiments on remote viewing found no credible evidence that

remote viewing works, and the topic of remote viewing is regarded as pseudoscience.// The program was terminated in

1995 after it failed to produce any useful intelligence information. David Goslin, of the American Institutes for Research

said, "There's no documented evidence it had any value to the intelligence community" // Science writers including

Gary Bennett, Martin Gardner, Michael Shermer and professor of neurology Terence Hines describe the topic of remote

viewing as pseudoscience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Targ

6.) Jeffrey Mishlove Phd

Jeffrey Mishlove recieved a doctoral diploma in parapsychology in 1980 from the University of California. This was the

first and the last time that such diploma has been granted. The reason therefor should be obvious so his degree doesnt

really count.

Universities

1.) The University of Edinburgh - Scotland

2.) The University of Northampton - England

3.) The University of Freiburg - your home country of Germany

I dont think I asked for universities. But also any results in paranormal research by these universities have never lead,

by peer-review, to the result that supposed parapsychologic effects/events are reality.

It took me 30 seconds in a Google search to find this information for you. I suggest that in the future you do some research

before you make proclamations as if you know what you're talking about

You wasted 30 seconds as yr research didnt provided the informations I asked for. Ok, perhaps 2% but sorry, no banana.

Edited August 7, 2015 by toast

[Am_I_Psychic]

1. Author is Dean Radin, so see below.

2. One of the principal investigators was Dean Radin, so see below.

3. Where and by whom exactly has this study been peer-reviewed?

4. Where and by whom exactly has this study been peer-reviewed?

Something is wrong with your reading comprehension because I asked for Phds in parapsychology and not for Phds

who also work in the field of parapsychology, but anyway:

1.) Dean Radin Phd

Dean Radin is a Phd in psychology and not in parapsychology.

Furthermore:

Radin's ideas and work have been criticized by scientists and philosophers skeptical of paranormal claims.In

addition, the review of Radin's first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Nature charged that Radin

ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations

for parapsychological data.

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Dean_Radin

2.) Daryl Bem Phd

Daryl Bem is a Phd in social psychology and not in parapsychology.

3.) Barry Taff Phd

Barry Taff is a Phd in psychophysiology and not in parapsychology.

4.) Julia Mossbridge Phd

Julia Mossbridge is a Phd in Neuroscience and not in parapsychology.

5.) Russell Targ Phd

Targ recieved a Bacjelor of Science in physics, so he isnt a Phd at all but at least not a Phd in parapsychology.

Furthermore:

Targ's work on remote viewing has been characterized as pseudoscience and has also been criticized for lack of rigor

// A number of scientific reviews of the SRI (and later) experiments on remote viewing found no credible evidence that

remote viewing works, and the topic of remote viewing is regarded as pseudoscience.// The program was terminated in

1995 after it failed to produce any useful intelligence information. David Goslin, of the American Institutes for Research

said, "There's no documented evidence it had any value to the intelligence community" // Science writers including

Gary Bennett, Martin Gardner, Michael Shermer and professor of neurology Terence Hines describe the topic of remote

viewing as pseudoscience.

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Russell_Targ

6.) Jeffrey Mishlove Phd

Jeffrey Mishlove recieved a doctoral diploma in parapsychology in 1980 from the University of California. This was the

first and the last time that such diploma has been granted. The reason therefor should be obvious so his degree doesnt

really count.

I dont think I asked for universities. But also any results in paranormal research by these universities have never lead,

by peer-review, to the result that supposed parapsychologic effects/events are reality.

You wasted 30 seconds as yr research didnt provided the informations I asked for. Ok, perhaps 2% but sorry, no banana.

Do your own research. Most of the studies were vetted by a body of academic Phd's and published in the peer reviewed Journal of Parapsychology. It should be pointed out that the Journal of Parapsychology also publishes negative results, in contrast to most mainstream psychology journals which nearly refuse to publish results that aren't positive. This alone should show that the Journal of Parapsychology is unbiased and scientific.

As far as Daryl Bem's parapsychological work, the "Feeling the Future" study was published in the respected mainstream academic Journal of Social Psychology. If you don't think that their academic peer-review is rigorous enough then you are beyond logic.

Each Phd I mentioned focuses most of their academic work in parapsychological topics. Most parapsychologists receive their Phd's in other topics. The reason for this is the many different aspects of science that are used in parapsychology ie chemistry, biology, medicine, neuroscience, psychology, physiology (the list can go on and on)

Russell Targ has a Phd in Physics from Columbia University!

Our government had a program in remote viewing for 25 years! Do you really think the US government would keep a program for 25 years that offers no discernible results?

I'll give you one example. The city of Berkeley in California gave a commendation to the program for it's assistance in the kidnapping of Patricia Hearst. It's not surprising to me that you don't know this, considering the fact that you actually use Wikipedia to gather information. Frankly it's shocking that you turn to Wikipedia for answers, considering the information on Wikipedia is run by Wikipedia users including guerrilla skeptics who intentionally keep any positive information on parapsychology or it's scientists out of Wikipedia.

Whether you asked for universities is irrelevant. Connect the dots and you should see that I mentioned a few universities that offer Phd's in parapsychology so you could further grasp the reality of the scientific discipline. The University of Edinburgh is one of the top higher educational institutions in all of Europe. Does that not qualify either?

I didn't waste 30 seconds, I used 30 seconds to educate someone who relies on Wikipedia for news and information. Try Google Scholar next time

Edited August 8, 2015 by Am_I_Psychic

[+DieChecker]

There is a debate among those who believe in EVP and those who don't believe. The truth is somewhere in the middle of those two viewpoints.

I'm not sure the truth must be in the middle. It could be EVPs are what believers think, or the Skeptics may be completely correct.

Myself, I think that EVPs are generally just some background noise from somewhere else, that people generally don't hear, or ignore, which shows up as very slight noises on recordings. There could be exceptions, But I've not really been convinced by anything yet.

[Am_I_Psychic]

I'm not sure the truth must be in the middle. It could be EVPs are what believers think, or the Skeptics may be completely correct.

Myself, I think that EVPs are generally just some background noise from somewhere else, that people generally don't hear, or ignore, which shows up as very slight noises on recordings. There could be exceptions, But I've not really been convinced by anything yet.

I absolutely agree that EVPs are generally just background noise. But I also don't think that all EVPs are just sonic artifacts or wishful thinking. Hence my statement of

There is a debate among those who believe in EVP and those who don't believe. The truth is somewhere in the middle of those two viewpoints.

Having said that I once heard an EVP that was recorded while I was in the same room as the recorder. The voice was unmistakably not the voice of someone present during the recording. The voice also was speaking on the same topic we were discussing. It is worth pointing out that there was no background noise and the voice was as clear as my own. This has only happened once, but the voice itself and the addition to a conversation I was having was enough of a personal experience for me to take a less skeptical stance on all EVP phenomena.

But I do agree that generally EVP phenomena are nothing but background noise.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Am_I_Psychic

[toast]

Do your own research. Most of the studies were vetted by a body of academic Phd's and published in the peer reviewed

Journal of Parapsychology. It should be pointed out that the Journal of Parapsychology also publishes negative results,

in contrast to most mainstream psychology journals which nearly refuse to publish results that aren't positive. This alone

should show that the Journal of Parapsychology is unbiased and scientific. As far as Daryl Bem's parapsychological work,

the "Feeling the Future" study was published in the respected mainstream academic Journal of Social Psychology. If you

don't think that their academic peer-review is rigorous enough then you are beyond logic.

Its not the question if such studies were vetted and/or published wherever. The question is if these studies provided results

that are reproducible and had lead to the perception that paranormal events/effcts do exist and are doubtless in their (positive)

results. Thats the real logic behind it. And I´m still missing such positive results.

Russell Targ has a Phd in Physics from Columbia

University!

I dont think so.

Our government had a program in remote viewing for

25 years! Do you really think the US government would keep a program for 25 years that offers no discernible results?

The program has been suspended in 1995. Do you really think that yr government should continue, and fund, a project that

didnt produced any usefull results within 25 years?

I'll give you one example. The city of Berkeley in

California gave a commendation to the program for it's assistance in the kidnapping of Patricia Hearst.

Yellow press woo-woo stuff based on happenstance.

It's not surprising to me that you don't know this,

considering

the fact that you actually use Wikipedia to gather information. Frankly it's shocking that you turn to Wikipedia for answers,

considering the information on Wikipedia is run by Wikipedia users including guerrilla skeptics who intentionally keep any

positive information on parapsychology or it's scientists out of Wikipedia.

I do use multiple sources but anyway, you opinion about wiki is the classic opinion that ppl have those have problem with

the fact that wiki does not eat everything that gets served. Its also classic that these ppl use, as you do, descriptions like

"guerrilla skeptics" and similar ones.

Whether you asked for universities is irrelevant.

Connect the dots and you should see that I mentioned a few universities that offer Phd's in parapsychology so you could

further grasp the reality of the scientific discipline. The University of Edinburgh is one of the top higher educational institutions

in all of Europe. Does that not qualify either?

Thats not the point here. You stated:

Phd. Scientists in parapsychology.

And I refuted your claim. You claimed that the mentioned persons are Phd in the discipline parapsychology. But 5 out of the 6

individuals you mentioned aren't Phd in parapsychology. So you have to maintain yr skills in diction and in analysis as well.

I didn't waste 30 seconds, I used 30 seconds to

educate someone who relies on Wikipedia for news and information. Try Google Scholar next time

I dont think that you are able to educate me something new and it dont think that you are able to judge on what sources I rely

on in general. But yr comment given is giving a very clear insightits into yr analytic skills. Means, the guy used wiki 2 times so

it is proved that this guy do use wiki always and exclusive. Thats the general modus operandi of pseudo scientists.

[Am_I_Psychic]

Its not the question if such studies were vetted and/or published wherever. The question is if these studies provided results

that are reproducible and had lead to the perception that paranormal events/effcts do exist and are doubtless in their (positive)

results. Thats the real logic behind it. And I´m still missing such positive results.

Psychic phenomena is generally elusive by nature. Psi isn't easily replicable on command, but Daryl Bem's study which was published in the Journal of Social Psychology has been replicated by 8 independent labs. It's a common skeptical argument to claim non-replicable phenomena but given a replicable example you choose to ignore it.

The program has been suspended in 1995. Do you really think that yr government should continue, and fund, a project that

didnt produced any usefull results within 25 years?

Do you really think that it would take 25 years for the US government to cancel funding to a supposedly useless project? Impossible

Also look up Russell Targ on a source other than Wikipedia. The man has a Phd from Columbia University

Yellow press woo-woo stuff based on happenstance.

So a commendation on record in the annals of a US police department is "yellow press woo-woo stuff"? Tell that to any US police department and let me know their response

I do use multiple sources but anyway, you opinion about wiki is the classic opinion that ppl have those have problem with

the fact that wiki does not eat everything that gets served. Its also classic that these ppl use, as you do, descriptions like

"guerrilla skeptics" and similar ones.

You only used Wikipedia.

When the moderators of all parapsychological related Wikipedia entries are hardcore skeptics I don't think it's a stretch to say that the parapsychological Wikipedia entries may not promote facts but rather agenda based propaganda.

And I refuted your claim. You claimed that the mentioned persons are Phd in the discipline parapsychology. But 5 out of the 6

individuals you mentioned aren't Phd in parapsychology. So you have to maintain yr skills in diction and in analysis as well.

I never claimed that most scientists in the field had a parapsychological Phd. I said that the scientists in parapsychology had Phd's. Perhaps your own analysis skills need maintenance to go along with your use of Wikipedia as a fact source.

I dont think that you are able to educate me something new and it dont think that you are able to judge on what sources I rely

on in general. But yr comment given is giving a very clear insightits into yr analytic skills. Means, the guy used wiki 2 times so

it is proved that this guy do use wiki always and exclusive. Thats the general modus operandi of pseudo scientists.

I think I have already given you an education. However as a skeptic you won't allow yourself to be educated. Why don't you look up "cognitive dissonance" on Wikipedia next?

Edited August 8, 2015 by Am_I_Psychic

[Am_I_Psychic]

Perhaps you should stick to your original unscientific comment on Raudive's political views.

Raudive?

That's a much easier avenue for you to pursue. You're failing to make any valid points.

However you are doing an excellent job of ignoring anything that doesn't fit into your narrow reductive materialist paradigm. It's time to crawl your way out of 18th century Newtonian physics and enter the 21st century of quantum physics and the double-slit experiment.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Am_I_Psychic

[Stubbly_Dooright]

There is a debate among those who believe in EVP and those who don't believe. The truth is somewhere in the middle of those two viewpoints.

There have been many instances where I have not heard things that others hear. I have 100% hearing in both ears and am in perfect health. So the question then becomes is something wrong with me or are these people wrong? I think what oftentimes takes place is wishful thinking and/or a mild form of mass hysteria. I have seen this myself on more than one occasion where I am surrounded by a group of people who see and hear things around every corner. There have even been times when one person is whispering and someone on the other side of the room hears a snippet of the whispering and claims they are hearing a ghost. It's patently ridiculous. A possible explanation for the delusion of people is "auditory pareidolia", which is created when the brain incorrectly interprets random patterns as being familiar patterns.

Having said that, I once heard unmistakable voices recorded on a digital recorder that were not heard in the moment. The incredible part was that I was there and I didn't hear anything in the moment, but when I played back the recording I heard a distinct voice that would be clearly audible to anyone who listened.

Most of what people "hear" in EVP recordings are just these random patterns appearing familiar, meaning sounds that are a bit like words and then people's wishful thinking takes over. The truth is that genuine EVP is rare!

I wish people would understand that they want to hear things so they hear things. If more people entered the world of the paranormal with a skeptical but open mind then perhaps those who believe wouldn't be so marginalized. What do you think?

I believe they do exist, but yeah I think they are not as many as it may seem. Plus, it depends on the room, if an EVP is inside, and what is probably there to make you think you heard something. The master bedroom in our house is under the slanted roof part of the house, so sounds get bounced back. There are times I hear things right at my ears, but it's just sounds coming from the other side of the bedroom, or even from outside, that bounce off the slanted ceiling.

I have noticed that rooms with rugs have various types of sounds to rooms with furniture on bare floors. And yes, if it wasn't for various situations where a subtitle tells you what the EVP says, I wonder if one would make something out as a voice saying something. I think it would have to be very clear to really make a difference on what it is.

But, I do wonder, and I hope it's ok to wonder this, but shouldn't this thread be in the Ghost forum and not Spirituality?

[Am_I_Psychic]

But, I do wonder, and I hope it's ok to wonder this, but shouldn't this thread be in the Ghost forum and not Spirituality?

It's always ok to wonder and ask questions

I think the forum is Spirituality vs Skepticism. I am skeptical of EVP being the common phenomenon that many in the paranormal community claim. Also if EVP exists that means that there is life after death. You can't get much more spiritual than that right?

Edited August 9, 2015 by Am_I_Psychic

[+Nuclear Wessel]

People have the tendency to perceive otherwise nonsensical information as something meaningful; in other words, pareidolia.

[Am_I_Psychic]

People have the tendency to perceive otherwise nonsensical information as something meaningful; in other words, pareidolia.

I agree that most EVP are nothing but perception play tricks or audio pareidolia. However there are also some interesting aspects that cannot be discounted

[toast]

Psychic phenomena is generally elusive by nature. Psi isn't easily replicable on command, but Daryl Bem's study which

was published in the Journal of Social Psychology has been replicated by 8 independent labs.

First I would like to let you know that he burden of proof is on you, not on me. So pls provide links to informations about the

8 cases/examination you mentioned.

It's a common skeptical argument to claim non-replicable

phenomena but given a replicable example you choose to ignore it.

Until today you didnt provided an example including fully detailed peer-review documentation. But you have tried to put a blame

on ppl who are skeptical and thats what I call the modus operandi of you FTBs.

Do you really think that it would take 25 years for the

US government to cancel funding to a supposedly useless project? Impossible.

The cancelation of the project is the reality and you have to acccept that fact. If you think its possible or not, is irrelevant.

So a commendation on record in the annals of a US

police department is "yellow press woo-woo stuff"?

Of course its yellow press woo-woo stuff, based on a criminal investigation and not on science. But just to recapitulate the

case: a guy named Pat Price selected one person out of a pile of pictures of criminals and the selected person was one of the

kidnappers of Hearst. The selection might be a product of happenstance or Price had knowledge about the case, so also

about the ppl involved in the kidnapping. But if you take the Hearst case as a proof for paranormal effects, then you have

reached the end of your chain of argumentation, because its poor.

You used Wikipedia. When the moderators of all

parapsychological related Wikipedia entries are hardcore skeptics I don't think it's a stretch to say that the parapsychological

Wikipedia entries may not promote facts but rather agenda based propaganda.

Your interpretation of the word facts seems to be very different to my interpretation of this word.

I never claimed that most scientists in the field had

a parapsychological Phd. I said that the scientists in parapsychology had Phd's. Perhaps your own analysis skills need

maintenance to go along with your use of Wikipedia as a fact source.

Pls try to keep it factual.

I think I have already given you an education.

However as a skeptic you won't allow yourself to be educated. Why don't you look up "cognitive dissonance" on Wikipedia next?

Childish argumentation. And, wiki is favorite candy, isnt it?

Edited August 9, 2015 by toast

[ChrLzs]

Do your own research.

I have.

Most of the studies were vetted by a body of academic Phd's and published in the peer reviewed Journal of Parapsychology.

So, PICK THE BEST EXAMPLE in your opinion and let's look at it shall we?

Don't be shy now..

And I'll be delighted to put a LOT more than 30 seconds into this, but you need to nominate your best example, not give us a whole pile of links that you know no-one will bother to check.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

It's always ok to wonder and ask questions

I think the forum is Spirituality vs Skepticism. I am skeptical of EVP being the common phenomenon that many in the paranormal community claim. Also if EVP exists that means that there is life after death. You can't get much more spiritual than that right?

Yeah, I was thinking that, so, I agree with you. I'm just so use to seeing the discussions of EVPs in the other forum. But your right, and thanks for responding.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

However there are also some interesting aspects that cannot be discounted

Such as ?

[StarMountainKid]

When I lie in bed at night and listen to my airconditioner I can hear all sorts of crowd noise and voices. It's just pareidolia.

[pokingjoker]

Wish I had a copy of the evp a friend caught one night when six of us went messing around. We were at a local small cemetery doing your typical ghost hunting. Upon playback we all heard clearly where's mama(I think it said) Betsy. Been a while the name might not be right. Which is moot, as we all listened and said why e thought we heard at same time and each said the same. Then after some back stepping we found out we were standing in between 2 headstones mom and child and moms first name matches the evp. Was pretty surreal.

[ChrLzs]

Just a thought, but ... I always found it odd that, if the true and only cause of EVP were background noise and pareidolia, why do so many "responses," whether they're intelligible or not, tend to occur shortly after a question is asked?

But do they? The skeptic in me says that is just you listening harder at that point.. It would not be impossible to test this using truly random noise, but ensuring soemthing is random is a lot harder than you might think. Eg 'white' noise is random by definition and if you listen to professionally generated white noise you won't be hearin' many voices I can tell you.. If however you listen to radio static, there are likely to be random variations eg ionospheric reflections and other effects that mean that you will pickup stuff that isn't random at all. Taking that to the extreme are those EVP generating scanner-things that quickly jump from location to location in the AM and FM bands - it is hardly a surprise when you hear odd syllables and that they then sometimes coincidentally produce words or even short phrases..

So my question would be - is the noise you are listening to, truly random, and thus only influenced by whatever it is that you claim is the source? It's only by examining all the technical details that we could find that out. And given you haven't really nailed down the source in any meaningful way, you are two full jumps away from having a decent hypothesis!

And what's the research for pareidolia being the explanation for EVP?

To be fair, there is no real dispute that pareidolia exists - it's how our brains are designed to work - ie looking for patterns! Those patterns may be in pictures, or sounds, or even be tactile, etc.. I don't know what specific research is out there, but no matter how much or little there may be, you must be able to demonstrate that what you have got isn't explainable by pareidolia, ie it is beyond 'pareidolic coincidence' (just made up a new term, I think..). That may sound like a difficult proposition, but I'm happy to elaborate.

However,there is not much point doing that until we know the basic nature of your experimental design. First you need to be sure that your evp gathering method is not, for example, just scanning AM and FM bands, where we already know 'voices' will exist..

Personal experiences tend to be the most convincing evidence. For most people, that's the only evidence they consider convincing.

True, but sadly that will get you pretty much nowhere in science. You need to move to Step 2 - Show beyond reasonable doubt that what you think you experienced was in fact part of reality.....