Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
TheEVPman

EVP and ITC

37 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

:yes::tu: Cheers my friend

reason for edit: Grammatical errors irritate me lol

Edited by ColoradoParanormal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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! :yes: 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:yes::tu: 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, with ITCs often the words are not as clear as we would like. There are many cases of documented studies into ITC and EVP. The idea all in all is to obtain responses to our questions with control words. This is how to properly use the method. Have the "disembodied" respond back using your words or phrases. Again, after 30 yrs of working in the field of EVP. It's safe to say the classes of EVP were developed to show how clear the voices come across. When words are repeated over such a devise on a constant basis... It's goes beyond chance.

Radios have a long history of being used as a possible means of communication with the otherside. During the 2nd WW. A number of radio operators reported the phenomenon of the dead through thier radios. Again, it's possible "they" may use electronics to contact us in some manner.

So, with any device such as a ghostbox. You have to use controls. The best control is haiving them repeat back words and use phrases in thier answers. Will the responses always be clear... NO. With EVP. Class A's are rare. However they are real and well documented. Again, it's the same with a ghost box or other ITC devises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are many cases of documented studies into ITC and EVP.

Then please post your favorite documented study... Just one - the best one, in your opinion.

It's goes beyond chance.

I'm sure the study you cite will back that up. Or not.

Radios have a long history of being used as a possible means of communication with the otherside.

Because.. words come out of them? You can play with those words until you get something interesting and apparently/supposedly relevant?

Again, it's possible "they" may use electronics to contact us in some manner.

It's also possible there is a massive, but invisible, elephant in the room. In fact I could argue that this is logically FAR more likely.

So, with any device such as a ghostbox. You have to use controls. The best control is haiving them repeat back words and use phrases in thier answers. Will the responses always be clear... NO.

And THERE's the big problem. You are using the controls to manipulate the 'data' until you get a result. This is called Confirmation Bias. It's not a good thing.. (There's a whole pile of other problems being demonstrated there, but C.B. will do for a start...)

However they are real and well documented.

You keep saying that. I challenge it. Show us the documentation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Honestly, it's simple in some regards. At times the disembodied may want to interact and communicate. Other times, perhaps not... They may want to connect through a ghost box or like devises for ITCs. Or a possible voice recorder. Who can say for sure? If when or where they may do so???

The real question is it possible?

Look up Raudive and his work and studies.

Believe what you will. No matter to me. Experiment and see what happens.

Edited by TheEVPman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, it's simple in some regards.

Simple, or is this a deliberately simplistic view?

At times the disembodied..

What 'disembodied'? Do you have any evidence, other than this completely circular reasoning, for their existence, before going any further?

..may want to interact and communicate. Other times, perhaps not...

Do you have some recorded and documented sessions that tell you that, or do you have some other reason to make that claim? Or is it just a guess?

They may want to connect through a ghost box or like devises for ITCs.

Or they may not exist at all. And if they do, what makes them able to use such devices - how do they do that? Did they just gain electromagnetic powers and the non-human ability to modulate RF signals? And if they can manipulate RF, *they* must be detectable from their RF/EMF signature in other ways...

Who can say for sure? If when or where they may do so???

The real question is it possible?

But hang on - earlier you said:

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.

That claim has no provisos whatsoever - you are clearly stating it is happening, but when asked for proof, you give that ridiculous peanut butter link? And now you say the real question is whether it is possible?

Look up Raudive and his work and studies.

Gee thanks for the cite... :rolleyes: But I see no proper study - I see a book author. What's more, his 'study' dates back to 1971, and was NEVER presented to the scientific community for proper review. It did not address such basics as confirmation bias, nor falsifiability, nor the null hypothesis, nor the proper use of controls, it is rife with 'cherry-picking'.. and I could go on.

There is a reason that peer review exists, why scientific methodology exists, why the concepts of proper and rigorous testing exist. There's a reason why people who have a clear bias towards a result should check themselves and present their work for proper scrutiny.

Believe what you will.

On a topic like this, where people's hopes (and fears and pre-existing beliefs) are being played with, I think belief is a VERY poor guide to truth.

No matter to me.

It doesn't matter to you??? You've been doing this for over 30 years, including to other people, and it doesn't matter? It would matter to me if I was a potential client...

Experiment and see what happens.

And there's a lot of the problem. Telling people to play with radios and jump them from station to station, or listen to white noise plus RF interference and try really really hard to see if they can hear stuff is EXACTLY and ABSOLUTELY the wrong way to go about this. Even if you claim confirmation bias isn't an issue, then the invitation to cherry-pick the data is inherent.. Indeed, I'd suggest YOU go and do a bit of research on Confirmation Bias. Then come back here and tell us how it might affect such 'experimentation', and what would be needed to avoid it. If you don't, I will. And that's just one small aspect - the rest of that invisible (or disembodied) elephant is still in the room..

Interestingly, there is a wonderful example of the way confirmation bias (along with cherry-picking) works to completely destroy the validity of such experimentation on the Wiki page for Raudive. I quote (emphasis mine):

... their first efforts bore little fruit, although they believed that they could hear very weak, muddled voices. According to Raudive, however, one night, as he listened to one recording, he clearly heard a number of voices. When he played the tape over and over, he came to believe he understood all of them. He thought some of which were in German, some in Latvian, some in French.

That is probably the most self-damning 'methodology' I have ever had the misfortune to hear.

So initially he had a lot of trouble getting anything, so he had to change his approach...

They only believed they could hear stuff, and even then it was weak and muddled?

It was just ONE recording - of how many - that initially he says he clearly heard a number of voices, and yet it was ONLY after he then played it over and over he again came to believe he understood?

Yet even then it was only after he allowed German, Latvian and French languages into his accepted verification scheme...

I'm sorry, but that is just laughable, and it is immediately followed by Raudive saying how deeply affected he was by someone's death.

No, no confirmation bias there, uhuh, no-o-o way.. :rolleyes:

Like I said, show us a properly documented study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, what about the Catholic Church and their study? Again we should undrstand not every experiment with EVP and ITC will produce the voices. All we can try to do for one is obtain interactions. Some times they disembodied respond... Other times we are left to wonder. We can not control the reasons of why they respond at times and other times they won't respond. So, we may or may not obtain data or experiences when conducting experiments. The factors of what produces the voices are unknown to us at this point, when they are truely the disembodied entities. So to say a study didn't produce any results means little. There is no known formula to produce the desired results with EVP and ITCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, what about the Catholic Church and their study?

???

Have you ever had *anything* to do with science or investigation?? That's the second time you have made a handwaving, non-specific reference, and expect others to go chase your reference. No link, no cite, no name of study. I'll lay odds that the only references to a genuine Catholic Church study is on evp websites, quoting other evp websites... If it was really done, where can I see the report on that study?

It seems you don't want people to look at your 'evidence'. Given the nature of that last lot, it is no wonder.

The fact is that you haven't addressed a single issue in regard to confirmation bias, cherry picking and the myriad other problems with this stuff - which tells all that is needed to know.

This is unsupported garbage - and is taking advantage of people's sadness, emotions and desires in the worst traditions of snake-oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you research? here's the two names of the priests who conducted the Vatican's study into EVP. The Vatican gave permission for priests to conduct their own research into EVP. Father Leo Schmid had actually been assigned a small parish in Oeschegen, Switzerland, in 1967 to give him time to experiment with recording the mysterious voices discovered by Fathers Ernetti and Gemelli. He collected more than 10,000 voices, many of which were published in his book Wen Die Toten Reden (When the Dead Speak)

I guess you don't know how to research and find things on your own?

After all, you can't seem to understand how dealing with the voices and recording them is something we can't explain or control. So based on your thoughts if no recording captures the voices it must be flawed. Anyone who knows anything about conducting experiement knows you must have controls in place and understand the factors which influence the out come. We have none of this with EVP or ITC. This is exactly what folks fail to see! WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF IT!

So, if they voices speak "polygot", why????????

With the paranormal there are no known controls.... After all isn't this why we call it, "PARANORMAL"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you research?

I DID. Unfortunately for you.

here's the two names of the priests who conducted the Vatican's study into EVP.

It was NOT, I repeat NOT a 'Vatican study'. Withdraw that claim or prove it.

The Vatican gave permission for priests to conduct their own research into EVP.

And that makes it a Vatican Study? If it was, where's the Vatican REPORT? Where are the actual terms of the 'permission' they supposedly gave?

Let me REQUOTE you:

what about the Catholic Church and their study

YOU said it was a Catholic Church study. It was NOT. Like I said, it's no wonder you like all this 'having no controls' and being something 'we can't explain'.

But I'm afraid that DOES NOT give you the right to make up stuff and falsely claim that the Catholic Church has done an official study or officially agreed that EVP exists.

It hasn't. It doesn't. Do not claim otherwise without EVIDENCE that comes from a credible source - in this case that would be the Vatican. I'll wait.

Father Leo Schmid had actually been assigned a small parish in Oeschegen, Switzerland, in 1967 to give him time to experiment with recording the mysterious voices discovered by Fathers Ernetti and Gemelli.

And as I said before - where is the REPORT on that study? What controls were there? What scientific training did these two have?

Where is the Vatican statement on this 'study' or the 'approval' that was given? (And may I say, yes, I've seen the statement that you will probably roll out next, but before you present it - was this a sanctioned statement on official Vatican policy? Does it refer to EVP, these priests, or any sanctioned study? Don't bring stuff here that you don't want to be properly scrutinised)

I guess you don't know how to research and find things on your own?

Backatcha.

After all, you can't seem to understand how dealing with the voices and recording them is something we can't explain or control.

Oh, I fully understand. So that means no attempt should be made? Or that you can make stuff up about sanctioned studies?

So based on your thoughts if no recording captures the voices it must be flawed.

That's simplistic, but not far from the truth. But didn't you say you had proof? WHERE IS IT? If you have gathered this evidence properly (and let's be honest - you haven't, have you?), why would you not present that evidence in a form that can be examined - in a form that has at least some semblance of attention to detail, and that the methodology you have used is sound? That's what I used to do regularly when working in the sciences. It's quite easy.. And necessary.

Anyone who knows anything about conducting experiement{sic} knows you must have controls in place and understand the factors which influence the out come.

Yes. We do.

We have none of this with EVP or ITC. This is exactly what folks fail to see! WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF IT!

What? You haven't even gone close to justifying that statement. Please do so.

If you don't, or can't, would you like me to give you an example of what you SHOULD be doing? I'll be happy to do so, and then I'll be fascinated to see your excuses justifying why you can't do it. You might be surprised at how easy most of it is..

So, if they voices speak "polygot", why????????

Yes, why indeed? I'll tell you - the more languages you allow (why not throw in Inuit, Portugese, Sanskrit?) the more possible hits! Win - win!!

With the paranormal there are no known controls...

And as Maxwell Smart would observe - you're LOVING IT. :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Once again, do your own research. Contact the Vatican I don't care. I never said I have PROOF. You seem to lack or do lack the ability to understand my first post. All I can say is. EVP and ITC research is well documented!

On the point, I've been able to make contact with voices that claim to be passed over loved ones. I can't say from where the voices come from. All we know is they are disembodied and respond to our questions NO MORE! Some times it works other times it don't. Why??? BECAUSE IT"S THE PARANORMAL!

Are we able to understand all the factors involved???? NO! So until we do. We can't produce the results like we could in a petri dish with an experiment! WOW!!! Maybe your lack of reason can grasp this!!!! It's that simple! ( seems you don't know or understand or how to apply science methods with unknown factors and come to same ends each time! it's impossible)

Research EVP and ITC for yourself! PROVE THE VATICAN DIDN"T DO THE STUDIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I gave you some sources to investigate... You didn't so.... So, did or didn't the Vatican do the research? Look it up for yourself... I did!

Have a wonderful day M8.

Edited by TheEVPman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am new to this whole arena and have gotten to experience some EVP and ITC work first hand. I am a forensic investigator so I am more skeptical than most. I know that I have been intrigued and continue to do more and more research as I learn. Some sites that have helped me as well as my own encounters and trials are:

http://atransc.org/research.htm

http://www.evpuk.com/

http://evp-itcresearch.weebly.com/index.html

http://www.ruhaunted.com/Communicating7.html

http://www.victorzammit.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.