Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
The Necromancer

One Of My P-SB7 Sessions

122 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

 
ChrLzs

Necromancer (btw, didn't you leave earlier..?) Would you mind NOT posting links and expecting us to read your mind. QUOTE the bit that you think makes some point for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer

Necromancer (btw, didn't you leave earlier..?) Would you mind NOT posting links and expecting us to read your mind. QUOTE the bit that you think makes some point for you.

I was going to take a break for a while, but I had some things to say before I did so.

I was also asked to provide those links, remember?

As for that last link about James Randi - it was all relevant!

In future however, whenever I see an illogical, pseudoskeptical argument, I'll just quote part of the link that applies to it.

Now, I'll go back to ignoring you too, for picking out and criticising a simple spelling mistake and blowing it all out of proportion.

Edited by The Necromancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

OK, then I'll bring the first part of that horrendous page HERE then...

From Necromancer's link:

In case you don’t know, James Randi is the most celebrated of the organized skeptics who founded the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF).

Yes, except it's now the 'International Skeptics Forum'.

Skilled and versed in the art of stage magic, Mr. Randi claims to be better able to detect fraud and trickery from psychics and mediums better than scientists can.

First up, you'll note that the deceptive person writing this did NOT quote Randi saying that. He wouldn't have wanted readers like Necro looking at the full context...

But Randi is indeed very, very good at spotting trickery - scientists are taught the scientific method, not magic and trickery, and like any human, they can get suckered by someone very skilled at his craft. Randi (and many like him) combines a good (not great) scientific knowledge with a comprehensive knowledge of magic and trickery - in regard to the science side, he makes no grand claims and would always call upon experts in fields he was NOT an expert in. Very, very sensible man... I think we should all take note of that approach.

He gives speeches attempting to “educate” (or brainwash rather, in my view)

Why is this person's view important, again? Surely here AGAIN he should be SPECIFIC, but nope, just more handwaving for Necro to lap up..... Brainwashing is a rather harsh claim, so you'd think he would give a direct example.

Why do YOU think that he doesn't, Necro??

..the public about psychics and paranormal phenomena, which he claims is all deception or self-delusion.

That;'s just an outright LIE. The whole point of the Challenge is that Randi is hoping one or more claims WON'T be a lie, and that at least some part of paranormalcy can be thence be accepted and proven. But again, this deceptive website owner doesn't give an example. Are you not spotting the trend here, Necro? Seriously?

He has written books such as An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural and Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions, made a PBS documentary called “Secrets of the Psychics”, attacked the reputation of psychics and healers such as Israeli-born spoon bender Uri Geller, debated with psychics on CNN’s Larry King Live, etc.

Yes, he has. He's helped uncover some of the worst frauds to ever hit the stage and try to fleece people, frauds like Peter Popoff, Uri Geller, James Hydrick. LOOK THEM UP. They ARE frauds. See how I'm giving actual examples? Why doesn't the deceptive website owner actually talk about specific cases? If there was one or two in particular that he felt were unfairly dealt with, why doesn't he NAME those cases? Do you seriously want to discuss Geller's ridiculous pretense?

The excuses on that page for avoiding proper debate on any specific case are laughable. That website is TRASH, Necro, and you really need to learn some simple basics - if people make claims CHECK them. And if they avoid quoting examples then alarm bells should be ringing.

Anyway, if you want to pick a specific case off that website, or you want to discuss how Randi's challenge actually works, why not discuss it properly rather than giving us blind links and handwaving?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

Here are actual experiment results (spectra were taken repeatedly, just few days ago, on Friday; same conditions):

spectra_zpsb27yylxa.png

I can repeat same experiment gazillion times, and I will get same results.

Is it so hard for paranormalist to get the same results repeatedly, huh? If that gadget P-SB7 works (i.e. getting "corporeal beings" to "talk"), getting Elisabeth (or whatever) 10 (or gazillion) times in the row wouldn't be a problem. Yet, zero/zilch/nada/zip results...

Edited by bmk1245
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer

Seeing as how it's getting late over here, I shall just go into those cases where James Randi actually refused to take on certain 'psychics' and 'alternative practitioners' because they weren't high-profile enough for him to worry about...also, how a lot of people with 'paranormal claims' that write to him, he just flat-out refuses to see or test.

So, the 'sampling procedure' is biased from the word go....even without having to go into anything else.

....and just because my spirit box doesn't automatically say 'hello Elizabeth' every time she enters the room (it has only happened three times) and because every session doesn't immediately start out with; 'Hello, Dianne...this is *insert name*, how are you today? what would you like to talk about?" etc doesn't mean I am getting responses on the machine that cannot be replicated.

Here is yet another 'anecdotal claim', so take it how you will.

One day, I was asking 'them' to identify a pair of reading glasses...I heard nothing.

I played it back expecting to hear the word 'glasses' and I didn't...so I played it back again, then twice, during that one sweep, I heard the word "spectacles" and even I don't use the word 'spectacles'...but there it was...plain as day...twice in one sweep.

So any results and repeatable results are 'session-based' only...apart from that silly little bugger called 'William' who will say his name every session and up to 10 times during a whole sweep...that's the only consistent thing that ever happens!

besides that:

Argument # 18: No psychic phenomena has been demonstrated under controlled conditions.

575]
Corollary: “Whenever proper controls are put in place, psi experiments only get chance results.”

This is another dogmatic belief by pseudoskeptics that is not based on facts, but on an a priori belief that psi is impossible and that only inadequate controls and sloppy methods can result in above chance psi results. Thus, any experiment that supports psi is automatically assumed by them to be uncontrolled, while any that fail is considered to be adequately controlled. However, this is simply not so because as mentioned in Argument # 17 above, the successful Ganzfeld and Autoganzfeld experiments were controlled. For an in-depth description of the controls used, see the following articles.

http://www.psychicsc...rg/papganz.aspx

http://www.skeptical...ho/ganzfeld.htm

Dean Radin’s books The Conscious Universe and Entangled Minds makes a solid case for the validity of such experiments.

Furthermore, honest independent researchers have also verified the reality and measurable effect of psychic phenomena. One example is Darryl Sloan, a balanced freethinker with a large YouTube following. In his channel at http://www.youtube.com/darrylsloan you will see many videos of his psi wheel experiments which demonstrate authentic telekinesis not explainable by any conventional explanations. Sloan has taken great care in them to make sure that his experiments are controlled (in sealed containers and at a distance). In his videos you will see a slight (not sensational) but real and measurable effect, as well as his observations, musings and speculations. He seems to be a real truth seeker that follows the evidence and changes his views in accord with it, asking questions, and admitting when he doesn’t know something, all of which are hallmarks of a genuine objective researcher. Sloan himself has always said in his psi experiments that the best proof one can obtain is by doing the experiments on their own. That is the best way you can prove psi to yourself, without having to take on faith what someone else tells you or has done.

Pseudoskeptics will say that an experiment was uncontrolled even when they were never at the location of the experiment. This happened with the SRI (Stanford Research Institute) experiments on famous psychic Uri Geller, which was published in the scientific journal Nature in 1974. Psychic debunker James Randi (Geller’s nemesis) and other skeptics who were not at SRI when Geller was tested, made a bunch of accusations against SRI such as poor controls and deliberate skewing of the results on the part of the scientists there, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ. But since Randi and his skeptics were never there, all they have is speculation based on their closed beliefs. Randi has no explanation for Geller’s success in some of the experiments such as guessing the exact number of the roll of a die in a cup 8 times in a row, or finding the cup with water or metal in it out of a series of cups. All he can say is that Puthoff and Targ are not magicians and do not know how to detect magic tricks. (Though suffice to say, Randi is not qualified as a scientist in any way, while Puthoff and Targ are) And of course, he charges SRI and Geller with clumsy inadequate controls or fraud, which are merely blanket statements from him cause he has no concrete evidence or explanations.

In other words, how many times does anecdotal evidence need to be 'validated' before it is no longer just 'anecdotal evidence'?

....and with that, I hear there's a big, wide, world out there, full of flowers, trees and other pretty things...not people who will criticise a simple spelling mistake, go on to insult your intelligence by saying 'only an uneducated, gullible person would believe in all this rubbish' then finish by asking you to try and prove that this 'rubbish' actually exists.

Surely I have better things to do in life than subject myself (willingly) to all this rudeness...surely.

Goodbye

Edited by The Necromancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

Here are actual experiment results (spectra were taken repeatedly, just few days ago, on Friday; same conditions):

spectra_zpsb27yylxa.png

I can repeat same experiment gazillion times, and I will get same results.

Is it so hard for paranormalist to get the same results repeatedly, huh? If that gadget P-SB7 works (i.e. getting "corporeal beings" to "talk"), getting Elisabeth (or whatever) 10 (or gazillion) times in the row wouldn't be a problem. Yet, zero/zilch/nada/zip results...

Nice.....Good job :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

Goodbye

Or is it " see you soon "

I tired to help you. Seems you do want a cheering section, or choir. As I said, you will not get that on any open forum. Good luck to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

I have seen Chester and Rose talk about their experiences with ITC communication, and apart from 1 or 2 posts saying; 'that's just BS'...nothing seems to happen to them either and they can have a sort of 'freedom of expression' which I seem to lack on here, because the minute I say anything about my box, it's like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

Thanks.

Maybe you just feed them too much. I've learned that we're probably not going to change people's minds about stuff, and if they haven't shared similar experiences, then they're just not gonna be on the same page. I'm ok with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

I haven't even gone there yet, because I figured if people couldn't accept I was hearing these things through my box, how on earth would they ever begin to process that?

I'm still not sure if I'm actually imagining all of that though...

What I am starting to understand is that it's like I have been given this choice here...I must decide whether to speak to the 'living' or speak to the 'dead' because speaking to either and telling either 'side' about the other is a total waste of my time.

It's one of those things which must remain inside the 'closet' where ghost-box users must admit they use one at their own risk.

All I have to say though, if it is me, I have suddenly decided to start swearing at myself and telling myself off...which never happened before I got my ghost box...

Anyway, back inside the closet I go, while I decide which 'trolls' are more deserving of my time...

You could try to test it by not saying anything about phenomena to those around you and then seeing if they relate the same experiences. I've done this on many occasions. The problem with it is that we still don't know if we're somehow causing the phenomena. A lot of times it does seem to focus around an individual, so moving to a new place doesn't often help.

As for telling yourself off...that's not as far-fetched as you might think. Many people harbor guilt and negative emotions over any number of things. I'm one of those lucky "survivor guilt" people, for instance. I'm not saying that I know for certain that's what it is every time people experience any type of phenomena, but I do think it's possible that strong emotions could build up over time and manifest in different ways. I think it's worth considering that at least sometimes we might be creating our own ghosts and demons to haunt and torment us. I don't mean that we are imagining things, because I know that sometimes phenomena occur that can be witnessed by others. As far as I'm concerned the phenomena are real. It's the question of what it is and where it comes from that I'm interested in.

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrBene

So she left? I was about to ask her about what she needed to do with Audio tools, I am quite fond of those tools since I do produce-record-master my own music. I know she wanted to improve sound and this can be done easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AstralPhreak

Goose bumps all the waay :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ChrLzs

Necromancer, you're handwaving is tiresome - once again you have made claims about the Randi challenge, but AGAIN haven't had the cojones to name the actual cases and all the details.

THEN, the very first of your links simply leads to 3 other links, which are discussion papers. I'm not chasing down this rubbish for you, stop sending us off on wild goose chases.

POST THE VERY BEST EXAMPLE YOU HAVE of a peer-reviewed and well-documented study. And then let's have a long hard look at it.

Why are you so afraid of doing that? It's a very simple and reasonable request.

BTW, what the heck does the ridiculous Ganzfeld stuff have to do with your EVP claims?

Edited by ChrLzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coolguy

Very cool session thanks for posting

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Just some observations, I'm a helpless skeptic myself personally and see a contraption that helps us hear things through subjective interpretation, however...

If we can agree on the supposition that spirits exist, then in regards to communicating with them, we can't know what doesn't work if we don't know what does.

"I heard voices saying these things on my P-SB7"

"Oh yeah? That thing doesn't work."

"But I heard this, this, that, and this."

"Do you know how radio waves work?"

I took some physics and engineering in college so I know a wee bit how radio waves work and that doesn't sound like the right question to me. The better question would be, "Do you know how spirits communicate?" Apparently some of us know how they don't communicate, by manipulating radio signals by (insert technical description of gadget here). I don't want to belabor the point or have a debate about the P-SB7. It seems to me the greater truth is still that we don't have a clue, not a single one of us. For science's sake, this is white-board brainstorming where anything should go. It'll more likely be people like The Necromancer, people who are actually trying, who ultimately find out.

I get the confirmation bias, and think that's a valid criticism here, but it also follows that an English speaking person would probably still hear English if they're using this device in Germany.

The ones too quick to deny will never discover anything unless it's just blind dumb luck in their case. Will we discover aliens from another planet with radio waves? Who the heck knows, right? I can know everything there is to know about radios and radars, that doesn't mean I can speak for the aliens, good grief! I would be quite full of myself to think I know that much. Really, who knows what wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum the aliens are on? The absence of peer review here likewise doesn't disprove anything. But if that's what genuinely mattered, there are plenty of actual peers - paranormal investigators - reviewing it. Which is kinda what this thread is, it's not a dissertation.

The leading edge of science is full of crazy dreamers who haven't proven anything much more than it is arrogant skeptics who never will. They may not be formally trained scient-ists either, and don't need to be. People think science is what's been discovered already. That might be because all the science books they read in school were full of exactly that. But to be totally fair, you did ask for it, Necromancer. I didn't care to debunk anything and that sorta kept me from participating here at first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

I agree with most of your post, Yamato, but a couple of minor quibbles.

The leading edge of science is full of crazy dreamers ..

I'm not a formally qualified scientist, but I've worked around (and managed/herded) many of them (in the marine sciences), and in fact the best and most prolific 'discoverers' who were adding the most to our knowledge of the oceans were NOT crazy dreamers - they were the ones who were extremely well-educated in the field and worked hard at their craft, verifying every step of their pathway to adding new knowledge to the existing body of 'accepted' science. As you hinted, if you don't understand the stuff you are playing with and/or the existing body of knowledge, you are very unlikely to make any breakthroughs..

.. who haven't proven anything much more than it is arrogant skeptics who never will.

Rather than label skeptics as arrogant, wouldn't it be better to point out those examples where they were wrong? The tactic of calling people arrogant (or close minded) is, as you well know, frequently used to avoid answering the hard questions.

People think science is what's been discovered already.

Hands up who thinks that? Sure, some might, but I certainly don't. Science is the name of a methodology that answers questions, and tries really really hard to get to the right answers (and get rid of the made up and wrong stuff).

That might be because all the science books they read in school were full of exactly that.

How is that a bad thing? In my case (and I'm a fairly old coot), I have a couple of those old textbooks, and there's virtually nothing in them that has been proven wrong. A few new bits have been added (eg in particle physics and quantum mechanics), but isn't that exactly how science should work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tobias Claren
On 23.10.2015 at 3:46 PM, bmk1245 said:

:huh:

What receiver, hopping through radio channels, has to do with paranormal? Efking stupid...

I suspect, this is to prevent that scraps of radio stations are audible (a popular accusation of critics.).

Under the assumption that natural radio sources such as theoretical "ghosts", would broadcast very broadly.
If you change the stations quickly, you will not hear words from radio stations.

But words that come in over all frequencies "dirty" broadband, you could hear.
You do not have to believe in ghosts, though this is technically understandable. Not "stupid"...
You should not simply take a broadband receiver, that receives all radio stations at the same time.
You would hear many words and music at the same time.
A fast pass is the only logical method to suppress artificial narrowband sources such as radiostations.
 

P.S.: The "Randi Challenge" is terminated!
Possibly own doubts, and fear to lose.....

Edited by Tobias Claren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

I see, Tobias, that you wish to use earthly logic and 'technical' discussion to discuss this.  Righto - let's go then:

Quote

I suspect, this {hopping through radio channels} is to prevent that scraps of radio stations are audible (a popular accusation of critics.).

1. It's a 'popular accusation' not just of critics, because for the first several devices of this type that is EXACTLY what they did.  Many still do, including yours, just a little faster.  But also read on.. 

Quote

Under the assumption that natural radio sources such as theoretical "ghosts", would broadcast very broadly.

2. Why do you assume that?  For a start, no-one has proven a single spirit or ghost exists.  Then, by what means would this spirit manipulate radio waves, let alone modulate them to carry information?  We know how all that stuff works, ie generating radio waves using electromagnetism and aerials, blah blah..  Why wouldn't a spirit merely push some air molecules to make a sound, rather than get all wired up and into HF modulation and demodulation?

Quote

If you change the stations quickly, you will not hear words from radio stations.

3. Oh?  How quickly?  If you are gong to rely on your equipment, you need to know how it works.  So you tell us - what is the sampling rate, ie frequency / length of sample, or is it just a simple sweep?  Does that frequency / length of sample vary across the frequency range? Why/why not? What about partial words, syllables, consonants?  What about the 'spread' of nearby or high powered radio stations, where their transmission can be heard over a large range of frequencies either side?  Indeed, how does it sample *any* sound unless it is a part of the sound being broadcast/modulated? Then, what are the random chances of a collection of such sounds sometimes resulting in something sounding like a word, or even two or more words, especially given rampant imagination and audio pareidolia?  How does your listening methodology factor in all the minutes/hours/days of footage we do *not* get to hear? - in other words how is this not just cherry picking of random noises?  BTW, I know the answers to all the questions above, so take care where you place your next footstep...

Quote

But words that come in over all frequencies "dirty" broadband, you could hear.

4. What on earth does that mean?  Broadband refers to the use of high frequency signals that can carry a lot of data, or the use of multiple channels, again to carry a lot of (or multiple types of) data.  What does 'dirty' mean in this context?  Are you suggesting that somehow, a formerly human entity can control a broadband transmission using no technology whatsoever?
Are you then suggesting this thing, which simply scans across the frequency range, will capture everything, despite it having no simultaneous monitoring ability whatsoever?  It's no wonder that even the 'best' examples are beyond pitiful..

Quote

You do not have to believe in ghosts, though this is technically understandable. Not "stupid"...

5. Not 'stupid'?  How about just completely wrong, and involving the use of words and concepts and 'logic' that all make no sense?

Quote

You should not simply take a broadband receiver, that receives all radio stations at the same time.
You would hear many words and music at the same time.
A fast pass is the only logical method to suppress artificial narrowband sources such as radiostations.

'Logical'? ... :D  Please refer back to Item 1. 
 

Quote

P.S.: The "Randi Challenge" is terminated!

Mmm.  After how many years?  And how many applicants failed at the tests THEY designed as a first step?  It was laughable.

Quote

Possibly own doubts, and fear to lose...

That's hilarious.  James Randi clearly hoped that at least a few of these claimants would pass their own preliminary tests, so he could put up a TV special every now and then.  But they were all so bad at it, they never even jumped their own hurdles...  The money was verifiable, the testing regime was open and public.  If you wish to discuss how it was 'unfair', then start another thread.  I'd love to go into more detail but it is rather offtopic...  Grasping at straws, one might say.

 

More about the SB7 Spirit Box here:

http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/02/high-time-we-kill-the-idea-of-communicating-with-the-dead-via-radio/

And here's an article about how the initial ones worked:

https://ocprstoronto.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/the-“ghost-box”-fraud/

Due to that sort of criticism, the snake oil scammers 'inventors' now use a higher scan rate so as to avoid getting too many recognisable chunks of words...  But the basic problem with them remains - see above..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tobias Claren

Why do you assume that?!?

Because the most natural sources are "dirty" over a wide radio range.
Exceptions are perhaps pulsars, but these are rare fast-rotating neutron stars.
The first radiostations from Marconi also broadcast very broadly (by the generating of lightnings). Not on special "frequencies".

Even "spirits" subordinate natural laws, when they exist (when!, but this is not the question).
Ask an expert, an radio astronomer, SETI experts (!) etc. (according to the broadband and narrowband of natural sources). Whats is your profession, "shop lever", office zombie etc.?

There is no need to prove ghosts, for the fact of broadband natural EM fields.

It seems to me, that you want to stress the question of the existence or non-existence of "ghosts".
But this is not the issue.
For the subject matter is irrelevant whether "spirits" exist.

Scanning speed is not important.
You're too "simple" to understand that?
Sorry, but you did not understand it technically.
The "ghost" does not change the frequency. No "frequency hopping" (FYI: Invented by an austrian hollywood actress) of the "ghost". You understand?
I guess, you bow to the boss every day (head in his buttocks etc.), and now look for people who are supposedly under you.
You know the saying "cyclist"?
"Laugh up, kick down"
"Laugh up" to the hated boss, "kick down" to people you think they are "under" you (as a "compensation", perhaps from a inferiority complex).

WE do not have to believe in or have prove "ghosts", for this technical details.


"Pareidolia" is real, but not everything is explaineable with "Pareidolia".
It seems like this is a "buzzword" for "simple people".
There are better and worse "sounds".
Personally, I believe only what I, and other people clearly understood (without affecting them).

 

Quote

How does your listening methodology


I have to disappoint you, I've never done anything like that.

Again, it is not important whether "ghosts" are proven.
EVP were proved scientifically on 26 March 1971 in the laboratory of Belling and Lee.
Physicist and electrical engineer R. T. Lovelock, Engineer Ken Attwood and A. P. Hale, one of Britain's leading experts in electronic shielding.
People with a higher scientific knowledge than you.

A.P. Hale: "In view of the experiments [...] I can not explain in ordinary physical terms what happened."

Ken Attwood:
"I have done everything in my power to solve the mystery of the voices - without success: the same goes for other experts. I suspect that we must learn to accept them. "


And:
Two examples from earlier times may illustrate the problematic situation regarding the
conception ‘liberty of the press’:  
‘In March 1971, the English newspaper SUNDAY MIRROR wanted experiments to be carried out
with the aim of verifying paranormal voices in the presence of RAUDIVE. Engineer ATTWOOD and
Engineer PRICKETT, both recording specialists of PYE‐RECORDS Ltd., had assured that all their
precautions against any unwanted fade‐ins/interferences from outside excluded the possibility of
having any low‐ or high‐frequency broadcastings on the tape. After the successful recording of
200 voices within 18 minutes time, they sent a report to ‘Sunday Mirror‘ in which they stated
being unable to provide any explanation for the voice phenomenon. An article reflecting this was
set in type but never was published. Subsequent investigation revealed that the editor‐in‐chief
had used his authority to block its printing, even though the experiment had been carried out on
behalf of his newspaper. The positive results nevertheless provided the impetus for the
publication of ‘Breakthrough’ (BANDER) [29 – The decision for publishing was with Sir Robert
MAYER. It was made after, in the presence of RAUDIVE, he had convinced himself of the existence
and the paranormal character of the voices; see BANDER, WATSON, p. 309].

( http://itcvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Instrumental-Transcommunication-Senkowski-Full.pdf / page 69 )
i: Belling & Lee is now part of dialight plc ( http://www.dialight.com/ ), if you want to ask them.

I think, you are an unfortunate embittered man.
Good honest (!) debunkering of obviously nonsense (tarrot cards, cristalls, sage burning, praying, believing in god, visit graves of relatives etc.) is OK, but you will break unimportant parts into many quotes.
This is also called "rabulistics". Or for your level "Chewbacca Defense".
Excuse me, but I am always amazed at this maliciousness and zeal behind this behavior.
I feel compassion for these people.
These people whose asocial parents have left they neglected intellectual.
And now they are working at a lousy job at wallmart, office, DMV, gas station, police, restaurant, fast food restaurant etc..
Irrelevant whether small employee, or branch manager. Frustrated people who are depressed to drag themselves 50 years to such work.
And some of them try to value themselves by looking for victims.

I remember, I never did anything in that direction. I am not a "esotheric", and I do not believe in god (or gods).
And I do not visit graves of relatives. You?
By the way, faith in God is a mental disorder. An infantile neurosis with a father's complex (Freud). Please tell this your religious, parents, grandparents, etc..
Not? Why not?

point "4." (nitpicking, inch pinching...).

Excuse my english and the abbilities of Google Translate.
"Broadband" means here, a very wide signal. Not "multiple channels" ("channel" is a man made invention), a single signal over a wide range. Yes, over many "channels".
But I guess, you knew what was meant.

"Randi Chalenge":

Quote

After how many years?


Irrelevant, it was terminated.
The question is WHY?


"OCPRS" are the same type of sect like CSICOP, GWUP etc..
No trustworthy reputable source.
There is an essay by a sociologist, and co-founder of such an association ("GWUP", the german "CSICOP").

I do not know, if there is an English translation.
Here with google translate:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skeptizismus.de%2Fsyndrom.html&edit-text=&act=url

Edited by Tobias Claren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Highlights only...

10 hours ago, Tobias Claren said:

Exceptions are perhaps pulsars, but these are rare fast-rotating neutron stars.

Which has zero to do with the topic.

Quote

Even "spirits" subordinate natural laws, when they exist (when!, but this is not the question).

Yes, actually it IS the biggest question.  Your entire 'argument' depends on their existence.

Quote

Ask an expert, an radio astronomer, SETI experts (!) etc. (according to the broadband and narrowband of natural sources). Whats is your profession, "shop lever", office zombie etc.?

I know two radio astronomers, and neither believe in ghosts.  SETI? - Again, aliens have nothing to do with the topic.

As for me, I've managed a research centre - but it's irrelevant - if you post correctly it doesn't matter what anyone's occupation is.

Quote

There is no need to prove ghosts, for the fact of broadband natural EM fields.

No need to prove the basic reason for the entire thread?  No, of course not - if you want to avoid and misinform.

Quote

It seems to me, that you want to stress the question of the existence or non-existence of "ghosts".
But this is not the issue.
For the subject matter is irrelevant whether "spirits" exist.

I'll let others be the judge of that.

Quote

Scanning speed is not important.
You're too "simple" to understand that?
Sorry, but you did not understand it technically.
The "ghost" does not change the frequency. No "frequency hopping" (FYI: Invented by an austrian hollywood actress) of the "ghost". You understand?

Have you read the specifications of the unit?  Calling me simple when it is you who doesn't understand this, is rather embarrassing for you  - of course the entity has to be ALSO be changing the frequency, OR NOTHING AT ANY OTHER FREQUENCY WOULD BE DETECTED.  Do you not know how radio frequencies work, in temrs of transmission and reception?  BOTH need to be tuned.

Quote

I guess, you bow to the boss every day (head in his buttocks etc.)

Goodbye.  With that we see your true colors.

 

Edited by ChrLzs
to fix grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Claren said:

200 voices within 18 minutes time

This seems to have ben easily done so can I ask why no one has repeated this experiment, countless times, in a controlled environment?   I would think the monetary reward for doing this cold be immense not to mention proving a whole new field of physics exists (Nobel prize?) yet no one has done it.  Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt221

My old cobra marine radio on the boat will scan quick if there's enough traffic on the airwaves it will stop briefly then move on and get a similar effect,as did the old sideband radios if you tweaked them a little

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.