Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

Ghost Box


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#46    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 15 November 2013 - 02:13 AM

View Postsam_comm, on 14 November 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

Testimonies are oral evidences provided by a witness under an oath, describing as accuretly as can possibly be. So, they've a value of their own, especially when you know the witness to be serious and honest. I would rather say perception of the observers  for it is not uncommon that a phenomenon is experienced by multiple witnesses. I never mentionned that this was proof or paranomornal activity but the documentation is certainly worth consider.

Anecdotes, no matter how honest or serious the person, are still lowest form of evidence.  

Quote

I've to agree with you though, at least 80% of all claim of paranornal activity can actually be debunked and attributed to a natural or psychological explanation. However, there is a 20% which doesn't appear to fall into this category and in which a rational explanations fails to encompass the phenomenon. It is almost laughable when scientific reductionism is used at large to force a phenomenon into a specific model, even if that doesn't make much sens. Making use of critical thinking allows to consider other explanations, even supernatural one, but not necesserely subscribed to at all cost without more evidences.

I dislike the word "debunk" when it comes to analysis.  It has cynical rather than skeptical connotations.  20% seems to be rather high for non-rational explanations. What is the source for that number?  After all, most if not all paranormal investigators have no clue how their equipment works much less how to determine a margin of error for results.   That is not even taking into consideration the tremendous leap of faith necessary to accept the devices give valid results in the first place.

Quote

We know that the ideomotor effect exist and in my view can account for many Ouija experiences. When a person strain to use it, the cousciousness can very well be what is at play. A good exemple: ''What is your name'':  ''FRGHTJHYU''. That seems to me like uncousicious mouvements of the pointer. You can also try for a long period of time and get nothing whatsoever. But with regard to a very exaustive documentation of Ouija experiences, I cannot exclude that there might more than one cause to the phenomenon. For some, the ''game'' even kept going even after it was safely back in the closet.

There is not evidence the ideomotor effect can be ruled out of any Ouija sessions.    
  

Quote

Who says that a ''unverifiable assumption'' will never be verifiable? As for the ''ghost'' phenomenon, this not a belief rather a possiblity that has not been convincingly refuted in my opinion.

Until it is verified it is just people making stuff up and using it as a basis for research.   The idea of science it not to refute anything. That is a cynical approach and not practical or even possible in most cases.  You cannot really prove a thing does not exist.   Science endeavors to determine the likelihood of something being true based on the weight of the evidence.  

Quote

I am aware of their video, they seem to want to prove their points rather than consider every aspect of the Ouija and the documentation objectively.  The medical experts will obviously not claim the Ouija board or any other devices to produce paranormal experience in some rare cases, they will find a suitable explanation in their realm of expertise. But one can be skeptical of this and have his own reserve.

How do you explain what happened when the participants were blindfolded?  The board seemed to work perfectly until they could not see it.  

Quote

I do not agree with the interpretation of Frank Sumpton in which he claimed to have received the design spiritually. However, in no way does that mean the device cannot be interesting to consider. He was an Ham radio operator and as a self-taught person he did know quite a bit about radio bands and broadcast. The guy has an interest in radio, EVP and spirit so he tried to develop a device in that regard. I do not dispute that a ghost box has provided no proof of the paranormal. That is pretty clear. it will need more investigations on that front before condamning though. That is my view.

As for wild assumptions and leapt of logics, you know I think as much as a scientific can be skeptical of the ghost phoenomenon and that kind of stuff the other way around can be true as well. Some people are skeptical of the explanations given by science. They look for alternative explanations.

Science is fueled by skepticism.  All scientific hypotheses are peer reviewed in an effort to break them.  E=MC2 was not accepted as a theory the day the paper was published.  It took more than a decade of debates and analysis before it gained any acceptance.  If a thing cannot stand even the slightest skeptical analysis, it is probably not worthy of consideration.


#47    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 5,336 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 15 November 2013 - 03:37 AM

Sam-comm, from reading your responses you seem at least prepared to think this all through.

So, tell me, how would you apply what we sciency types call 'controls' to your use of this 'box'?  If you are not sure what I mean, just say so and I'll explain, and even give some examples of how you should ensure that your tests of the device and any subsequent claims are entirely fair and unbiased.

Because clearly, anyone with even a tiny bias towards believing in this device will simply cherry pick whatever they hear and work out ways it could apply to their desired outcome.
The controls I refer to would be methods to ensure that such cherry-picking is not portrayed as 'evidence'.

I'll be interested to hear what you have done in this regard, or plan to do.

Edited by ChrLzs, 15 November 2013 - 03:40 AM.

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

#48    Draco20

Draco20

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined:02 Jun 2013

Posted 15 November 2013 - 04:57 PM

View Postsinewave, on 15 November 2013 - 02:13 AM, said:

I dislike the word "debunk" when it comes to analysis.  It has cynical rather than skeptical connotations.  20% seems to be rather high for non-rational explanations. What is the source for that number?  After all, most if not all paranormal investigators have no clue how their equipment works much less how to determine a margin of error for results.   That is not even taking into consideration the tremendous leap of faith necessary to accept the devices give valid results in the first place.

The term ''debunk'' is used to expose the falseness of an idea. I do not think it is cynical. Paranormal investigations have to test the validity of a claim, if it can be done and find a rational explanation to it. Most claim of parananormal activity do find a rational explanation: wind gusting, racoons in the attic, pipe creaking ect.
As far as I know, many investigators know how to set up a DVR system, use a thermal, handheld and audio recorders. These are the tools an investigator rely most on to gather evidences and we all know that these devices works an there is no need of faith to use them. If something show up, it will record and film.

As to the numbers, it is an estimation, according to paranormal investigators who are in this field for a long time, such as TAPS, PRA and BHP. It was to put in evidence that a strong majority of paranormal claims can be 'debunked'.



View Postsinewave, on 15 November 2013 - 02:13 AM, said:

Until it is verified it is just people making stuff up and using it as a basis for research.   The idea of science it not to refute anything. That is a cynical approach and not practical or even possible in most cases.  You cannot really prove a thing does not exist.   Science endeavors to determine the likelihood of something being true based on the weight of the evidence.
  

Scientists propose hypothesises to explain phenomenon and then try to verify or refute them. Are they making ''stuff up''? I do not think so. Their works is based on hard and objective researches but it doesn't mean their hypothesises are accurate.

That is what some paranormal researchers are doing in a similar way. They propose hypothesises, based on historical research, investigations, testimonies and evidences.

In science, as far as I know, refuting an hypothesis is as important as to validate one.


View Postsinewave, on 15 November 2013 - 02:13 AM, said:

How do you explain what happened when the participants were blindfolded?  The board seemed to work perfectly until they could not see it.

You can usually know when someone is moving intentionally the pointer, it comes in subtle jerks instead of smooth and uncontrolled movements. Is it what happened there? Maybe. At any rate the ''study'' wasn't very thorought.

It could be that the participant are the eyes of these hypothetical entities. They might need to be aware of what is going on themselves in order to  communicate. That is a possiblity that have not really been considered seriously by the Ouija critics. The issue is that it is not ''verifiable'' but yet consistent with a documentation not only of Ouija experiences but with other spheres of the 'ghost' phenomenon. Therefore, to me this possiblity falls into a state of temporarily acceptance. I am personnaly not really satisfyed by the ideor effect to encompass all the experiences of the Ouija phenomenon. I am what be called skeptical on the matter. Nonetheless, if paranormal experiences there really is which is neither a certainty, doubtless it is of rare occurance. Let's not forget that Ouija itself is nothing else than a wooden board.


@ChrLz

Well first off, I am not a paranormal investigator nor am I a scientist, only a commentator. In my view, an exhaustive documentation of ghost box experimentation should be gathered. The device has been created in 2007 no very long ago. Of course, as we know it is very difficult to prove a paranormal experience with the actual standard. Some will argue that it simply do not exist but that is not my opinion. It should be experimented in a alleged 'haunted' locations and in benign ones and compare the results.

There is all kind of experiments you can do, like gathering a dozen persons around it and give them a pencil and sheet of paper to mark the responses they heard. In the end of the sessions (you will need the repeat the experiments many times and with different people) you can compare what match among the participants and what doesn't.

You know the bias can be on either sides. Some have already condemned the device (or anything paranormal related for that matter) without even given it a try and are therefore as much biased than those who believe they're chosen ones. We need a middle ground here or the results will always be disputed and controversial either way.

Edited by sam_comm, 15 November 2013 - 05:46 PM.


#49    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 5,336 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 15 November 2013 - 11:09 PM

View Postsam_comm, on 15 November 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

Well first off, I am not a paranormal investigator nor am I a scientist, only a commentator.
In which case you need to be aware that you do have a bias.

Quote

It should be experimented in a alleged 'haunted' locations and in benign ones and compare the results.
I could flippantly say that there is a perfect example of that bias - a scientist would say that all the controls need to be tested first, and that would be the 'benign' stuff.  You certainly would not do testing in 'alleged 'haunted' locations' first as that would enhance your confirmation bias.

Quote

There is all kind of experiments you can do
NO, there aren't all kinds of experiments you can do, and taking that approach will lead to complete failure (or rather complete 'success' in the minds of the promoters - verified!!!!),  Ask any scientists who does this sort of testing, and they will go through all the detail you MUST consider in ANY test that would be worthwhile.

Quote

like gathering a dozen persons around it and give them a pencil and sheet of paper to mark the responses they heard.
Seriously?  You don't see the problem with that 'test'?  I give up.  Please, look up concepts like FALSIFIABILITY, VERIFIABILITY and the NULL HYPOTHESIS.

Quote

You know the bias can be on either sides
Really, in this case?  Removal of any bias is why those concepts above exist.  Given that I see absolutely nothing being considered here that would be a reasonable test, I think the bias is mostly one way..

Quote

Some have already condemned the device (or anything paranormal related for that matter) without even given it a try and are therefore as much biased
No, actually that 'condemnation' you claim is simply the perfectly appropriate rejection of a completely untested device that is being claimed to have extraordinary powers.

Quote

We need a middle ground here or the results will always be disputed and controversial either way.
There is no middle ground.  It is untested.  There is no controversy.  If those promoting it were serious about anything but confirming their beliefs and making money, they would take the time (and it would only take a few hours) to first research what would be needed (a keen uni graduate could help out) and develop some tests, and then maybe a few days of rigorous work to collect some genuine data.  I'm guessing you haven't seen what genuine data of this kind might look like, but I've looked for anything that might qualify on this topic, and there is absolutely nothing - not even a half-decent attempt.

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

#50    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 16 November 2013 - 01:01 AM

View Postsam_comm, on 15 November 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

The term ''debunk'' is used to expose the falseness of an idea. I do not think it is cynical. Paranormal investigations have to test the validity of a claim, if it can be done and find a rational explanation to it. Most claim of parananormal activity do find a rational explanation: wind gusting, racoons in the attic, pipe creaking ect.
As far as I know, many investigators know how to set up a DVR system, use a thermal, handheld and audio recorders. These are the tools an investigator rely most on to gather evidences and we all know that these devices works an there is no need of faith to use them. If something show up, it will record and film.
As to the numbers, it is an estimation, according to paranormal investigators who are in this field for a long time, such as TAPS, PRA and BHP. It was to put in evidence that a strong majority of paranormal claims can be 'debunked'.

I don't use the word.  Feel free.  Just know that you are not debunking your are investigating.  There is a difference.  

The average ghost buster can push a power button but how about understanding exactly what that device does and how it does it?  That is more than a little important if you are going to use the device to collect evidence.  You would not use a contaminated petri dish to setup an important culture so why would you use a device that will absolutely contaminate your data without knowing how to control it out?  

  

Quote

Scientists propose hypothesises to explain phenomenon and then try to verify or refute them. Are they making ''stuff up''? I do not think so. Their works is based on hard and objective researches but it doesn't mean their hypothesises are accurate.

That is what some paranormal researchers are doing in a similar way. They propose hypothesises, based on historical research, investigations, testimonies and evidences.

In science, as far as I know, refuting an hypothesis is as important as to validate one.

Refuting is not the nature of science though that is sometimes how it works out.  The idea is to establish likelihood. That is why scientists have to take so many math classes.  Data is only part of the process.  You then have to analyze it and determine the margin of error for all steps of the process.  Good science cannot be done without this diligence.  

Stating that the design of device came psychically from the spirit world is making stuff up or at the very least, delusional.   Stating that ghosts are electromagnetic or they draw energy from their surroundings without any empirical evidence is also problematic.  There are many more such assumptions that serve as the starting point for paranormal research.  

Quote

You can usually know when someone is moving intentionally the pointer, it comes in subtle jerks instead of smooth and uncontrolled movements. Is it what happened there? Maybe. At any rate the ''study'' wasn't very thorought.

The board worked perfectly until they could not see it.  Then the planchette started going to where they THOUGHT the letters were.  

Quote

It could be that the participant are the eyes of these hypothetical entities. They might need to be aware of what is going on themselves in order to  communicate. That is a possiblity that have not really been considered seriously by the Ouija critics. The issue is that it is not ''verifiable'' but yet consistent with a documentation not only of Ouija experiences but with other spheres of the 'ghost' phenomenon. Therefore, to me this possiblity falls into a state of temporarily acceptance. I am personnaly not really satisfyed by the ideor effect to encompass all the experiences of the Ouija phenomenon. I am what be called skeptical on the matter. Nonetheless, if paranormal experiences there really is which is neither a certainty, doubtless it is of rare occurance. Let's not forget that Ouija itself is nothing else than a wooden board.

That is why Ouija evidence is a hard sell.  It does not work without people touching the planchette and people, whether they realize it or not will move the planchette.  Ghosts are said to be able to move objects, why not the planchette without people touching it?


#51    TopToffee

TopToffee

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 231 posts
  • Joined:06 Oct 2013

Posted 16 November 2013 - 11:05 AM

Has Amazon started doing ghosts in a box for people now?Next it will be Werewolves in a crate and Vampires in a Coffin.May get my mother one for Christmas


#52    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 16 November 2013 - 11:21 AM

I had a board like that, more of a toy than a real one, when I was in school.  I used it by myself, touching it ever so lightly.  It said, "**** you."  (There, I just beat the obscenity checker to the draw).


#53    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 16 November 2013 - 04:55 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 16 November 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

I had a board like that, more of a toy than a real one, when I was in school.  I used it by myself, touching it ever so lightly.  It said, "**** you."  (There, I just beat the obscenity checker to the draw).

To be fair, the "real" ones are toys too.  They are sold in the game aisle at toy stores.

Edited by sinewave, 16 November 2013 - 04:55 PM.


#54    Veliska

Veliska

    Investigator

  • Member
  • 2,581 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Florida USA

  • The unknown is what people are really scared of.

Posted 30 November 2013 - 04:18 AM

I have picked up evps on my digital video camera and on my recorder on my cell. Class A evps at that but I hate that I can't hear it unless I play it back. That's why I would love too get me a spirit box..or ghost box. Same thing lol. I have used the ghost radar and I think its fake sorry just my opinion



Posted Image

www.myspace.com/veliska28

#55    -Desiderata-

-Desiderata-

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 157 posts
  • Joined:03 Dec 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

  • Chance favours the prepared minds.

Posted 04 December 2013 - 12:55 PM

View PostIndrid, on 13 October 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

Some of you may recall a thread in which I asked for people's opinions on the phone application "Ghost Radar" that is available for most smartphones in some form or another. While it was a nifty app, there were no reliable testimonies or evidence to validate the software' legitimacy. In short, it was there to be used more for fun than actual research.

Not too long after I had made that original thread, my periodic delving into paranormal "evidence" on the web led me to the discovery of the "Ghost Box". This device intrigued me. It seemed to require more effort in the even one were attempting to preform a hoax than say your standard EVP. One can easily whisper whilst recording with a device, upload it to the Internet and call it an "EVP". Yet in the case of the Ghost Box, I would think an extra amount of skill and time invested is required to recreate the audio effects that the Ghost Box produces while inserting ones own desired words and phrases into the recording.

I have zero experience in using a Ghost Box but after watching a number of videos online I'm curious to know why there isn't a greater amount of attention paid to this method if it is seemingly so reliable and regularly produces results for all sorts of individuals.

Steven Huff has a YouTube channel called "Huff Paranormal" I believe. He has recorded countless Ghost Box sessions and his recordings seem quite convincing. Although I am still doubtful. While someone's accounts may be believable and convincing, and hell I may even say "Well this could be possible", I never truly believe something until I experience it firsthand.

So, is picking up a Ghost Box worth the try? Do you have experience with one? What do the skeptics says?

I'm "on the shelf" with ghost boxes. If the device was ideal, spirits would have no problem with communication. I'd like to test one but I don't fancy the expense.  In brief: I "stumbled" on a bunch of spirits a couple of years ago.  I was trying to record unexplainable noises/creaks that had began in my home, and on play-back I got "voices"    I didn't record again after that experience.  One new laptop and two years later (October 2012) curiosity got me and I made a recording using a basic built-in program , on play-back I still got voices coming through.  

If you are serious about wanting to speak with spirits, I 've not long discovered their ability to transfer themselves into other PC's (distance irrelevant) According to arrangement of wires and equipment used, determines their clarity/volume of speech. I seriously doubt a ghost box is necessary.


#56    MysticMissy

MysticMissy

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2014

Posted 02 January 2014 - 04:15 PM

Hiya, I am new to this forum and I admit, I haven't read through the last 4 pages in response to the OP's original question about ghost boxes (ok, I scanned through a few comments but that was about it).

I am a ghost hunter and also talk/hear/see and sense those that have passed.

I was captivated by ghost boxes and having used a friend's one, I bought one of my own.  It is AWESOME!
Some people say that they can be 'programmed' to give cerain responses. That is total pants. I don't see how a radio can be programmed to answer questions.

I have had lots of back and forth conversations with spirit and also I have had a spirit who says the odd word in response to questions.  There are times however when nothing comes from the ghost box.

For example, i was at some ruins of an Abbey.  I asked if there was a spirit with me, and a voice said 'Francis'.  I asked where I was, and the reply was 'Abbey'.  I walked into the ruin of an infirmary and asked how many spirits were there and he said '8'. Upon asking for the names of the patients, he gave me six of the eight names.  I went back to the Abbey a week later and asked again, who was there.  The name was 'Francis'.  This is, beyond doubt, conclusive evidence, I feel, that spirits do communicate through the ghost box.

If there is anything that is programmed, it would be the Ovilus. I won't buy one of those.


#57    Brian Topp

Brian Topp

    Dynamic Interactions Coordinator Of Paradoxes.

  • Member
  • 3,091 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Year next Tuesday!

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:48 AM

View PostMysticMissy, on 02 January 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

Hiya, I am new to this forum and I admit, I haven't read through the last 4 pages in response to the OP's original question about ghost boxes (ok, I scanned through a few comments but that was about it).

I am a ghost hunter and also talk/hear/see and sense those that have passed.

I was captivated by ghost boxes and having used a friend's one, I bought one of my own.  It is AWESOME!
Some people say that they can be 'programmed' to give cerain responses. That is total pants. I don't see how a radio can be programmed to answer questions.

I have had lots of back and forth conversations with spirit and also I have had a spirit who says the odd word in response to questions.  There are times however when nothing comes from the ghost box.

For example, i was at some ruins of an Abbey.  I asked if there was a spirit with me, and a voice said 'Francis'.  I asked where I was, and the reply was 'Abbey'.  I walked into the ruin of an infirmary and asked how many spirits were there and he said '8'. Upon asking for the names of the patients, he gave me six of the eight names.  I went back to the Abbey a week later and asked again, who was there.  The name was 'Francis'.  This is, beyond doubt, conclusive evidence, I feel, that spirits do communicate through the ghost box.

If there is anything that is programmed, it would be the Ovilus. I won't buy one of those.

He hasn't been on, I doubt he will be back, People like that lose interest on their own threads.
Indrid

Group: Member
Active Posts: 2
Member Since: 11-October 12
Last Active: Offline Oct 13 2013 10:23 AM

Edited by Brian Topp, 04 January 2014 - 02:48 AM.

It is easier to claim it is paranormal than taking the hard route to find out what really happened.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users