Bone Black - Make Up Poltergeist Wall Marking

[papageorge1]

35 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

I am not keeping up and am not part of this conversation, but no one else seems to accept what you mentioned as legitimate. 

As usual, I am the only non-skeptic attacker still standing.

[SecretSanta]

6 hours ago, macqdor said:

......................xrf analyzer

 

was the gun used,  results come up on the screen in real-time

the make-up of the tested area.  The wood piece used, still exists as does the door it came from papageorge1

 

 

Another question...

In your “report” you talked about your colleague running a test with the xrf gun. You in one sentence even had a link to the gun, the link was entitled (the GUN). It was a link to a company called Spectro.

https://www.spectro.com/products/xrf-spectrometer/xsort-xrf-gun-handheld-analyzer

However this picture is from a company called Delta.

Not that it makes much of a difference but I was wondering which gun was used?

[SecretSanta]

23 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

here's a link     It shows the device (XRF analyzer) used and the results that displayed on a screen.

You do realize that the photo of the gun is not the one his colleague used, it’s a stock photo. 

[macqdor]

Quote

Not that it makes much of a difference but I was wondering which gun was used?

I'd have to check with my co-worker as to the type of gun used. Meaning brand name.  It was yellow, silver and had a screen on it.    Im not gonna say what I think it was (Manufacturer Type) because I know how this board clings to stuff.    If I see him, I'll ask him.  Key word here is when I see him.  I'll email him also.   Stay tuned.

 

 

[SecretSanta]

13 minutes ago, macqdor said:

I'd have to check with my co-worker as to the type of gun used. Meaning brand name.  It was yellow, silver and had a screen on it.    Im not gonna say what I think it was (Manufacturer Type) because I know how this board clings to stuff.    If I see him, I'll ask him.  Key word here is when I see him.  I'll email him also.   Stay tuned.

 

 

Once you find out you should check the link entitled THE GUN in your report to make sure you have the correct one listed. It doesn’t look good when you’ve got 2 different brands claiming they’re “the gun”. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by SecretSanta

[papageorge1]

22 minutes ago, SecretSanta said:

You do realize that the photo of the gun is not the one his colleague used, it’s a stock photo. 

No, I didn’t know but It doesn’t make much difference to me. I can imagine they might not have a stock photo of every model.

[kmt_sesh]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

here's a link     It shows the device (XRF analyzer) used and the results that displayed on a screen.

Thanks. That one I did see. It looks like a stock photo. That's not a lab report.

[papageorge1]

12 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Thanks. That one I did see. It looks like a stock photo. That's not a lab report.

It contains lab results: 

 

The XRF gun kept picking up high concentrates of calcium-tricalcium phosphate (84%, to 94%) depending on interaction. Other elements from the test include: calcium carbonate, prosperous and other carbon material

 

I am not sure that he used the term lab report or what terminology he used,  but this is more effort than we usually see. The term lab analysis would work too. If this is not good enough, then one can ignore it.

The first sentence in post 1 said: This video reveals the steps I took to have the Oct 31st/Nov 1st wall writings analyzed.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by papageorge1

[macqdor]

papageorge1

 

I just re-read my article just now and its clearly those making the noise about its content didn't read all of it.  They cherry picked through it, and grabbed what they thought was a discrepancy.   I think someone here today even said Zak Bagans said "equipment can sometimes give off false positives?"  Zak Bagans?  False positives?   The guy runs around the house with an XBox Kinect saying demons talk to him.  You're quoting that guy?

Thats why I dont respond to a majority of the repeat offenders questions. I know they're not reading something.    They're not reading it in entirety and their not watching the video in its entirety.   The report was never written to win the report of the year award.  It was written by the house occupant(me). It satisfies me, it meets my requirement because its genuine, authentic in how it came about.   So I laugh (internally) not scoff when someone ask's me a question after saying they read something.  They clearly didn't read all of it . And they clearly ignore the words like "high probability" and words like "what happens next."   What happens next means we're going to take these findings elsewhere and see what else we can find.    We as in, me.     These are my expenditures.     No one else's.  

I have no time for splitting hairs and that's all today's episode was: an episode of recruiting new people to the board as a means of splitting Hairs.

 

split hairs - to make petty distinctions; quibble.

[moonman]

The report may be good enough for you, but it's obviously not good enough for anyone else (except that one guy, we're all painfully aware of his opinion).

If you're trying to convince the public of something, your results need to be complete and documented. It's neither. 

 

Neither - not one or the other

Edited February 23, 2018 by moonman

[macqdor]

That's a relative statement. 

[macqdor]

moonman or anyone for that matter, show me another another report written and done by a house occupant who had malevolent manifestations?

Point them out to me?  Their report especially. The one they did, themselves.  Please send me one that passes your smell test. I'll use their(that) report as a template for my next one.     The one where I share why the house was haunted?

send to IM and I'll repost it here.  I dont want to miss it by accident.

I dont care how old it is. Send it to me please.

 

[moonman]

If you want this sample scan thing to be taken seriously, you need to have a lab do it and post the actual report. Here we have some guy with zero credentials waving a detector around that he may not even know how to use, and we don't even get to see the readout on the screen.

That's NOT a relative statement.

[SecretSanta]

But it’s like you try to pass these “reports” off as real documentation when in fact it’s like your own personal journal. 

When I had questions I was told (repeatedly) to read the report. Never could find an answer to my questions. If you had said from the beginning “I don’t have any documents showing the chemical composition of the paint” I would have stopped asking for it. Just be honest, don’t keep referring someone to a report when the information was never there to begin with.

 

[kmt_sesh]

35 minutes ago, macqdor said:

...Zak Bagans?  False positives?   The guy runs around the house with an XBox Kinect saying demons talk to him.  You're quoting that guy?...

LOL Okay, that's one point in your favor.

[macqdor]

No there reports.  Some by me. Some by others. Journals ? That's another website 

 

 

[moonman]

You really can't understand why people want concrete documentation to back up all the things you claim? I'm not even talking about the ghost stuff.

Like they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have no evidence, just claims.

[Piney]

9 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

As usual, I am the only non-skeptic attacker still standing.

Is that what you call it? You haven't shown any proof either. Just parroted Keith or referred to posts some of which were debunked by several members.

[XenoFish]

I think Mac's reading comprehension skills need work. I said that by using equipment designed for a specific purpose, being used for a different one can give false positives. Meaning the o' so sacred emf detector many ghost hunters used is designed for electrical work. Meaning anything giving off emf will trigger it. Supposed 'spirit voices' off audio equipment are auditory pareidolia. Then you have camera artifacts. Yet the believers can back all this up with excuses such as ghost are electromagnetic, or equipment is unbiased so it detects spirits. Whatever bs that allows them to validate their claims. Zak Bagans is a joke. "Incubus" yeah whoever remembers that should have a good laugh.

[Saru]

Forgive me if I've missed something here, but what specifically is the significance of this 'bone black' material ?

From what I've read, it's a fairly common material - nothing particularly special about it.

How does proving that the markings are drawn using this pigment support the claim that they are paranormal in nature ?

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Saru said:

Forgive me if I've missed something here, but what specifically is the significance of this 'bone black' material ?

From what I've read, it's a fairly common material - nothing particularly special about it.

How does proving that the markings are drawn using this pigment support the claim that they are paranormal in nature ?

In the OP's original posts he connected it with Indians ( which it's not) which is the whole theme of the haunting. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Piney
typo- need coffee

[macqdor]

Quote

Forgive me if I've missed something here, but what specifically is the significance of this 'bone black' material ?

From what I've read, it's a fairly common material - nothing particularly special about it.

How does proving that the markings are drawn using this pigment support the claim that they are paranormal in nature ?

Saru

 

The significance of Bone Black is its Bone Black.  The ingredient is not paranormal, the application of it is.   IMO.  What other poltergeist case do we know of where the wall markings were actually determined?    People always assume  crayon. People always assume paint?  We assume any other type of substance, but thats just it.  Its always assumed.  Its never determined.  People stop and say " oh thats crayon?" Debunked!   Or "oh thats paint, could have been bought at the Home Depot, debunked"   They don't know that?  Looks alone can't determine that.  You don't know that.  Skeptics are great knee jerk diagnosing.  I'm not that way. Sorry guessing never worked for me.  Qualifying does. 

 Bone Black is not readily known. None of you knew of its existence  prior to this post.   I'm pretty sure of it.  Using Google to increase your IQ about Bone Black doesn't count.  But thats not even the kicker here.  The kicker here is accessibility, feasibility, and application.   There's so much in the wall marking pics and videos that you all are missing thats not even being discussed.   The need to be right, the need to quickly debunk something is ruining a lot of you'd objectivity. 

There have only been two instances in our house and where we believe the Bone Black substance was actually applied.  The previous wall writings, had something else.   The question then has to be asked, at least for me it does is why. Why Bone Black?  Why an Upside Down Man symbol?   I might not ever know, but guess what?  I'm going to try anyways. If thats boring to some - feel free to proceed to the next post or next thread. 

We have the technology today to know when paint was made, and where it was made.  Its not easy to determine, but it's possible.  All it takes is a little bit of resource, dedication, and wherewithal.    I'm the only one  researching this and getting answers.  The way this was done fascinates me. Even more - now that I'm not living in the house.    Maybe because I've seen stuff that most people don't see (video below).  The skeptics, and cynics have their view, because they haven't experienced this stuff.  Their agnostic to the concept of a poltergeist even existing.   I dont have that luxury.  I use to, but not anymore.   Not until something ran past in the hallway - the day my poster caught fire.

I'm 49 years old.  None of this was on THINGS TO DO LIST six years ago. Far from it.  Then May 1, 2012 came and the rest as they say is history.

 

 

 

[papageorge1]

5 hours ago, Piney said:

Is that what you call it? 

 

Yeah, that's what I would call it. I am the only one without a negative impression of the claimant still standing in the thread (once again on this forum).

5 hours ago, Piney said:

 You haven't shown any proof either. 

Why would I from a distance even try to claim 'proof'.

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by papageorge1

[papageorge1]

 

4 hours ago, Saru said:

Forgive me if I've missed something here, but what specifically is the significance of this 'bone black' material ?

From what I've read, it's a fairly common material - nothing particularly special about it.

How does proving that the markings are drawn using this pigment support the claim that they are paranormal in nature ?

The chemical analysis pointed to 'bone black'. This is just further information on the case and not intended to be strong evidence in itself that the drawings had a paranormal origin. 

However, the bone black may be interesting when an analysis of the whole case is done. (coming this spring)

 

[Piney]

24 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Yeah, that's what I would call it. I am the only one without an anti-macqdor attitude still standing in the thread (once again on this forum).

Why would I from a distance even try to claim 'proof'.

 

So you are such a "critical thinker" you are backing his claim without proof?   

16 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

 

The chemical analysis pointed to 'bone black'. This is just further information on the case and not intended to be strong evidence in itself that the drawings had a paranormal origin. 

However, the bone black may be interesting when an analysis of the whole case is done. (coming this spring)

 

Evidence hasn't been shown that there was any chemical analysis yet. Just stock photos of a spectrum analysis gun and a Wiki  photo of a readout.