Looking for Skeptics - Continuation (Cassidy's EVP/diamond damage claim)

[trustbutverify]

If I fail, it needs to be thoroughly explained why.
Why does noise appear from nowhere?
Why does it sound like voices in full sentence?
Why does recorded noise fade out?

If I get a scientific answer to any of the above, after investigation, I'd be surprised. If it's "speculated" away on the day, that wouldn't actually be a fair result.

I consider it a pass if:
The diamonds alter.
If I manage to transfer spirit activity into the pre-examined PC's.
If I manage to cause noise to fade out whilst another noise remains during playback.

I consider it a fail, if I cannot achieve any of the above on the day.

I suggest anyone reading this thread examine the above carefully. It sums up the entire problem accurately.

 

[Pixel42]

Sorry Pixel, could you show me where I said the above?

Where have you said you attribute the voices you imagine you hear to spirits? Throughout this thread and its predecessor, despite the fact that such an extraordinary explanation is entirely unwarranted as the recordings you've shared have been textbook examples of audio pareidolia. You've also told us that you attribute many other unremarkable events in your life (most recently damage to jewellery) to such spirits, again without the slightest justification.

ETA: Why did Mr Randi take his name from the site? because of retirement?

No reason was ever given. It seems he just didn't want to be bothered with it any more. His retirement came later. He is 86.

Was everybody's older threads dissected and over-written (compounding speculation) or just a few?

All threads were copied over to the new forum intact.

 

[xjx388]

I discovered it whilst taking the ASKE challenge. I'd said to Michael, if there is only a minor alteration to his recording, (which there was) there will be "other" signs that the PC has been affected. I asked M to check to see if his PC was still "unaffected" before we continued the challenge, by recording a 10 second tune. This was the reason I was dismissed from the challenge, because "checking his PC before continuing" wasn't in the protocol.

Interesting.

I'd noticed way back that a member here described his recording as having a "constant noise" running through (rain & fan) When I played the recording through this PC, the constant noise trailed off and disappeared, leaving short blips in it's place.

There are a number of explanations for this particular phenomenon that are not supernatural. I don't have enough information to rule out these mundane explanations. Applying Occam's razor, au am not swayed by this story.

On the day I realised that the above could be replicated, it was due to an aeroplane flying overhead. My green sound detector bar on the PC was indicating "noise" and then the indicator shot down to zero as the noise continued.

Again, mundane explanations exist. The way you describe this, it could be that your software has a built in noise gate. This would cut off recording once the noise went below a certain level. You may still hear it, but it would have dropped below the noise gate threshold.

I tried recording a long hum. On playback the hum disappeared after 4 seconds leaving short blips behind. I tried recording a sound wave (70hz) it also faded out.

This is less likely to be a noise gate issue but could simply result from a faulty mic or cable. It could be a problem with the sound card you are plugging the mic into.

I tried recording a hum, and after 4 seconds introduced a tapping sound. The hum faded out but the tapping could still be clearly heard.

This is a little stranger. If both sounds were recorded through the same mic, there aren't too many ways one sound would fade out and another would remain. I suppose the mic or sound card could have trouble with certain frequencies ... In any case, this claim is testable. I can do it on my PC and audio setup, where I am certain both sounds would be clearly audible. Then you could transfer the entity over to my PC and record the exact same thing in the exact same way I did. If the hum faded away, you'd have something. Of course, we'd need to arrange a strict protocol to where there is no possibility of you altering my electronics at all.

I tried recording (again 70hz) as a gentleman recited "The rain in Spain.." The hum faded out and the voice clearly remained.

Based on this, I recorded part of a song "A lovely Day" (Bill Withers) where he holds his note on the word "DAY" for 9 seconds. On playback, his note disappears after 4 seconds, leaving the rest of the music remaining.

If, under carefully controlled conditions, you were able to make these things happen, you'd win the million.

I have no idea how it works, I just know it works. I was informed that where "they" are, they talk fast (very fast) and their words entangle with each other's. Vibration causes their speech to improve on volume. It slows down their speech and untangles one voice from the many.

I've heard this explanation for EVP before as well. It doesn't make any sense. EVP is supposedly a recordable phenomenon. That means it must manifest in a way that follows the laws of audio physics. I can make a recording of many voices rapidly sped up. There is no way that applying a constant noise over it is going to draw out any particular voice. There is just no way such an explanation would result in a physical manifestation like EVP.

We do, however, know that our brains are attenuated to trying to make sense out of any sound we hear. Thus, it wouldn't be surprising that certain sounds that are not speech would come across as speech to us. Thus, the most likely explanation for EVP is an auditory illusion caused by our brain's attenuation to patterns.

The demonstration is full of unexplainable activity. I will be trying to demonstrate as much paranormal as I have discovered. Transferring spirit activity into other PC's, altering the internal of a diamond, cause noise to fade out, speaking in full sentence (using drum vibration) and so on. If only one of these abilities succeed during the preliminary test, I should stand a good chance to move onto the main test.

You are not likely to be tested with so many different and seemingly unrelated phenomena. If I were in charge of such testing, it would be difficult to create a proper protocol. Much better to test one thing at a time.

Do you have any video of you recording sounds and them subsequently fading out? Or maybe of the diamond breaking? That's a good place to start looking for your most testable claims.

Best of luck!

 

[Cassidy]

Cassidy,

Over the years this forum has seen a lot of people making paranormal claims who seem unable to specify a simple test. I know that other posters have tried to explain to you the best way to create a simple, easy to validate test: once again, emphasize the following points in your protocol:

1. What is it that you will do in the test that is paranormal? Keep it simple, not requiring a value judgement (obvious to anyone), and just focus on one thing for the test even if you can do multiple paranormal things.

2. It should be easily and consistently performed in a relatively short period of time in such a way that would not permit deception. So turning an untouched diamond measurably black in a few minutes or hours probably would be okay, if the judgement of black could be measured by an instrument or other non-subjective method (double blind based on before and after pictures, perhaps). Wearing a diamond for a few days and looking for cracks would probably not be okay. Having someone look at a diamond before and after a session and making a visual judgement of if it looked a bit darker would probably not be okay (too subjective and relying on memory).

3. At this point, no one cares how the paranormal event is achieved. If you believe it is due to spirits, that is fine, but placing this explanation in the protocol just clutters up the test. Just explain what you will do, not why it happens.

4. Be very specific in your protocol as to what would be a positive test result ("The transparency of the diamond after the protocol will be less than 50% of the transparency before."). Pick something you have practiced and know will work consistency. Be careful to not move the goal posts after the test ("The diamond looks a bit darker to me and my mother, if not 50%, so it is a partial positive and the Challenge is cheating me" "The diamond is a bit redder now, so that should count as a positive." Etc.).

5. Come up with a protocol that will not allow for excuses ("The computer had the wrong sound card." "Too many unbelievers were in the room.") Eliminate what will prevent a positive in the test when writing the protocol. Don't change the protocol during the test.

Great tips, thanks for the write-up (I'll paste it to notes)

 

[Cassidy]

Interesting.
There are a number of explanations for this particular phenomenon that are not supernatural. I don't have enough information to rule out these mundane explanations. Applying Occam's razor, au am not swayed by this story.

Again, mundane explanations exist. The way you describe this, it could be that your software has a built in noise gate. This would cut off recording once the noise went below a certain level. You may still hear it, but it would have dropped below the noise gate threshold.

This is less likely to be a noise gate issue but could simply result from a faulty mic or cable. It could be a problem with the sound card you are plugging the mic into.

This is a little stranger. If both sounds were recorded through the same mic, there aren't too many ways one sound would fade out and another would remain. I suppose the mic or sound card could have trouble with certain frequencies ... In any case, this claim is testable. I can do it on my PC and audio setup, where I am certain both sounds would be clearly audible. Then you could transfer the entity over to my PC and record the exact same thing in the exact same way I did. If the hum faded away, you'd have something. Of course, we'd need to arrange a strict protocol to where there is no possibility of you altering my electronics at all.

If, under carefully controlled conditions, you were able to make these things happen, you'd win the million.

I've heard this explanation for EVP before as well. It doesn't make any sense. EVP is supposedly a recordable phenomenon. That means it must manifest in a way that follows the laws of audio physics. I can make a recording of many voices rapidly sped up. There is no way that applying a constant noise over it is going to draw out any particular voice. There is just no way such an explanation would result in a physical manifestation like EVP.

We do, however, know that our brains are attenuated to trying to make sense out of any sound we hear. Thus, it wouldn't be surprising that certain sounds that are not speech would come across as speech to us. Thus, the most likely explanation for EVP is an auditory illusion caused by our brain's attenuation to patterns.

You are not likely to be tested with so many different and seemingly unrelated phenomena. If I were in charge of such testing, it would be difficult to create a proper protocol. Much better to test one thing at a time.

Do you have any video of you recording sounds and them subsequently fading out? Or maybe of the diamond breaking? That's a good place to start looking for your most testable claims.

Best of luck!

Thanks, I lack technical understanding but that made clear enough sense.
I don't have a video of noise disappearing, but I made a youtube clip up containing the types of noise that can be produced using vibration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKkJ9WlUESI

I've saved the recordings made with the journalist. The journalist spoke as the other noise faded out, but there's no way to upload it to here.

I documented the pre diamond test, but this is just a written statement signed by the gent who challenged me.

The disappearing noise is a hit every time. I've claimed special fingers, there are many ways to prove it should one particular thing fail on the day.

Is that right? if I demonstrate the fading noise part, it's enough to prove my claim?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've claimed special fingers, there are many ways to prove it should one particular thing fail on the day.

No. Each and every thing you intend to demonstrate should and will be treated as a separate claim.

Is that right? if I demonstrate the fading noise part, it's enough to prove my claim?

If there's an objective way to demonstrate it. If you truly think that there's a 100% chance of success, I'd go with this.

You say that this happens when you record stuff with the microphone. So, what I'd suggest is that you have a tone generator (a physical one, not a software one) and a metronome (again, a physical one, and I'd go for an old-fashioned clockwork one that makes a "clunk" noise, rather than a modern one that produces an electronic beep). You should also be in a room that is as free of ambient noise as possible. I would recommend hiring a recording studio for a couple of hours.¹
You start the tone generator making a noise, and set the metronome going at a slow speed. The metronome should be a little louder than the tone generator (this will help with the later analysis), but only a little. You record 30 seconds of this on your computer while everybody remains silent and nobody goes near any of the equipment. The folder into which the recording is saved is empty and has been checked beforehand by all parties.

When the recording has been generated it's loaded in to a program in which the waveform can be seen (I would recommend the free Audacity for this). Anybody who is used to working with waveforms will be able to to recognise the shape of a waveform generated in this way (I can provide an example, if anybody wants me to) and will be able to distinguish the ticks from the tone. As the tone becomes quieter, the part of the waveform that represents it will become smaller.

It will be declared a pass if the amplitude of the tone portion of the waveform drops below a pre-agreed threshold (such as being 10% of what it was when it held steady²) while the amplitude of the ticks remains consistent.² The amplitude is measured by highlighting a specific, small portion of the waveform that all parties agree is representative of the area they want to examine, filling the screen with the highlighted section with the "fit to screen" button, and then zooming in vertically so that a precise measurement can be made. The program measures amplitude on a scale from 0 to 1, to three decimal places, which should be precise enough for the measurements we're talking about, if the recording is of a decent volume.³
That would be my preliminary suggestion for a protocol. I welcome criticisms and suggestions.

¹And ensure that you have done this before the actual test, as well. Make sure you can do what you want to do in the environment in which you're going to do it. There's no point getting there on the day, finding you can't do it, and saying that it's the fault of the room.

This is the number 1 thing that people get wrong with JREF testing - they don't make sure that they can actually do what they're claiming to do in the way they're claiming to be able to do it before the test. Make sure you can. And I don't mean the day before, I mean before people are committed to coming to see you.

²What constitutes "held steady" and "remains consistent" is also agreed beforehand, as an empirical measurement.

³What constitutes "a decent volume" is also agreed beforehand, as an empirical measurement, as should acceptable thresholds for the ratio in amplitude between the ticks and the tone in the first 4 seconds.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
The rep can check that ...

Who is this rep?
Do you really think you'd be taking the MDC through the mail or via a rep?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I've saved the recordings made with the journalist. The journalist spoke as the other noise faded out, but there's no way to upload it to here.
...

How large is the file?

 

[Senex]

I would think if your spooks had the ability to change the inside of a diamond to something else they would be able to change the entire diamond to something else or at least be able to levitate the diamond.

Your spooks suck. They don't even aspire to doing something measurable for the million dollars. Your spooks will rightfully stay in spook oblivion unless you come up with a measurable way the spooks can be verified.

 

[Biscuit]

Interesting, but just to rectify, these forces don't use the PC or the drum and band to smash diamonds. I'd be using the drum to generate vibration, so I can communicate during the experiment. If pareidolia is the answer for the sentences that emit during the experiment, I'd be highly surprised, but the breaking diamonds has no other explanation other than paranormal, surely?

I think you missed my point entirely. You are under the impression that spirits exist. The JREF organization is not. What you claim spirits can do is not the test, you need to prove the spirits exist.

Take the example of the man who claimed his mustache would curl in the presence of ghosts. JREF would not test this claim because the existence of ghosts has not been demonstrated. You and your claim are in the exact same boat.

As far as there being only one explanation for how a diamond can be damaged, supernatural, I think you are mistaken. Diamonds are very durable but can be changed, chipped, damaged, and scratched by many means. How do you think we get specific cuts of diamonds? Jewelers shape the gem by removing pieces of it. I am not an expert on diamonds but just a quick google search revealed that the myth of diamonds being unbreakable is just a myth.

I honestly doubt your entry for the MDC will be accepted if it contains the presupposition that spirits exist. If you want to mount a serious challenge your claim should be, "Spirits exist." Work on how you can prove that.

 

[Biscuit]

I would think if your spooks had the ability to change the inside of a diamond to something else they would be able to change the entire diamond to something else or at least be able to levitate the diamond.

Your spooks suck. They don't even aspire to doing something measurable for the million dollars. Your spooks will rightfully stay in spook oblivion unless you come up with a measurable way the spooks can be verified.

This has already been hand waved away back in the original thread. The spirits won't do tricks is what Cassidy/Flaccon was told when asked if the spirits could do anything useful or substantial. Instead the spirits like messing with hard drives and diamonds.

 

[Senex]

This has already been hand waved away back in the original thread. The spirits won't do tricks is what Cassidy/Flaccon was told when asked if the spirits could do anything useful or substantial. Instead the spirits like messing with hard drives and diamonds.

Well, we must still wait for a serious million dollar challenge.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think you missed my point entirely. You are under the impression that spirits exist. The JREF organization is not. What you claim spirits can do is not the test, you need to prove the spirits exist.

No, she doesn't need to prove that spirits exist. What she's described as happening with the recording of a constant noise vs. a series of short noises is physically impossible. If she could demonstrate that it happens then it should win the million.

That is, in fact, the point of the JREF challenge - it's to test specific claims, not to make declarations about the paranormal. If at some point in the future someone passes and wins the million (which, if enough people take the test, will be bound to happen eventually just by pure chance) then that will not demonstrate that how they believe something works is accurate, just that they could do what they claimed they could do under specific circumstances.

Think of it this way - say the JREF tested 3 dowsers. 1 thought he was feeling magnetic fields that the water gave off, 1 thought it was a gift from God, and the third thought it was his great-uncle Bert guiding his hand from beyond the grave. To win the million these dowsers wouldn't have to prove that water gave off magnetic fields which were detectable by human senses, that God exists, or that physical interaction with people in the afterlife were possible. All they'd have to do is to find the water wherever it is in a properly controlled test.

The test isn't concerned with the "how", just with the "if". Once it's been established that there is an effect when the possibility of mistake or fraud is removed, only then does figuring out how that effect happens becomes important.

Take the example of the man who claimed his mustache would curl in the presence of ghosts. JREF would not test this claim because the existence of ghosts has not been demonstrated. You and your claim are in the exact same boat.

No, this is not the same thing. Cassidy's claim is not dependent on the existence of spirits, whereas the moustache man's claim is. If Cassidy can demonstrate an impossible claim then it doesn't matter whether or not she believes that it's spirits that are responsible, and passing the test won't say anything about the existence or otherwise of spirits.

 

[Senex]

No, she doesn't need to prove that spirits exist. What she's described as happening with the recording of a constant noise vs. a series of short noises is physically impossible. If she could demonstrate that it happens then it should win the million.

That is, in fact, the point of the JREF challenge - it's to test specific claims, not to make declarations about the paranormal. If at some point in the future someone passes and wins the million (which, if enough people take the test, will be bound to happen eventually just by pure chance) then that will not demonstrate that how they believe something works is accurate, just that they could do what they claimed they could do under specific circumstances.

Think of it this way - say the JREF tested 3 dowsers. 1 thought he was feeling magnetic fields that the water gave off, 1 thought it was a gift from God, and the third thought it was his great-uncle Bert guiding his hand from beyond the grave. To win the million these dowsers wouldn't have to prove that water gave off magnetic fields which were detectable by human senses, that God exists, or that physical interaction with people in the afterlife were possible. All they'd have to do is to find the water wherever it is in a properly controlled test.

The test isn't concerned with the "how", just with the "if". Once it's been established that there is an effect when the possibility of mistake or fraud is removed, only then does figuring out how that effect happens becomes important.



No, this is not the same thing. Cassidy's claim is not dependent on the existence of spirits, whereas the moustache man's claim is. If Cassidy can demonstrate an impossible claim then it doesn't matter whether or not she believes that it's spirits that are responsible, and passing the test won't say anything about the existence or otherwise of spirits.

You are acting like her lawyer that she never requested. She claims the spirits do the work. She isn't backing away from that -- why are you?

 

[Cassidy]

No. Each and every thing you intend to demonstrate should and will be treated as a separate claim.



If there's an objective way to demonstrate it. If you truly think that there's a 100% chance of success, I'd go with this.

You say that this happens when you record stuff with the microphone. So, what I'd suggest is that you have a tone generator (a physical one, not a software one) and a metronome (again, a physical one, and I'd go for an old-fashioned clockwork one that makes a "clunk" noise, rather than a modern one that produces an electronic beep). You should also be in a room that is as free of ambient noise as possible. I would recommend hiring a recording studio for a couple of hours.¹


You start the tone generator making a noise, and set the metronome going at a slow speed. The metronome should be a little louder than the tone generator (this will help with the later analysis), but only a little. You record 30 seconds of this on your computer while everybody remains silent and nobody goes near any of the equipment. The folder into which the recording is saved is empty and has been checked beforehand by all parties.

When the recording has been generated it's loaded in to a program in which the waveform can be seen (I would recommend the free Audacity for this). Anybody who is used to working with waveforms will be able to to recognise the shape of a waveform generated in this way (I can provide an example, if anybody wants me to) and will be able to distinguish the ticks from the tone. As the tone becomes quieter, the part of the waveform that represents it will become smaller.

It will be declared a pass if the amplitude of the tone portion of the waveform drops below a pre-agreed threshold (such as being 10% of what it was when it held steady²) while the amplitude of the ticks remains consistent.² The amplitude is measured by highlighting a specific, small portion of the waveform that all parties agree is representative of the area they want to examine, filling the screen with the highlighted section with the "fit to screen" button, and then zooming in vertically so that a precise measurement can be made. The program measures amplitude on a scale from 0 to 1, to three decimal places, which should be precise enough for the measurements we're talking about, if the recording is of a decent volume.³
That would be my preliminary suggestion for a protocol. I welcome criticisms and suggestions.

¹And ensure that you have done this before the actual test, as well. Make sure you can do what you want to do in the environment in which you're going to do it. There's no point getting there on the day, finding you can't do it, and saying that it's the fault of the room.

This is the number 1 thing that people get wrong with JREF testing - they don't make sure that they can actually do what they're claiming to do in the way they're claiming to be able to do it before the test. Make sure you can. And I don't mean the day before, I mean before people are committed to coming to see you.

²What constitutes "held steady" and "remains consistent" is also agreed beforehand, as an empirical measurement.

³What constitutes "a decent volume" is also agreed beforehand, as an empirical measurement, as should acceptable thresholds for the ratio in amplitude between the ticks and the tone in the first 4 seconds.

The tone disappears every time (No external microphone) I get best results using a 60 or 70hz. The results range from:
A) The tone disappears and my voice can be clearly heard.
B) The tone disappears and a voice can be heard but cannot be understood.
C) The tone disappears and the words I've said completely alter.

I never know which result it will be, but the tone disappears every time.

 

[Cassidy]

Who is this rep?
Do you really think you'd be taking the MDC through the mail or via a rep?

No idea, I sent an application form off and was emailed by Krysyn Lambert 7 weeks later. Before I forwarded a suggested test she requested, I asked if it was possible to have the equipment delivered to a JREF rep here in the UK for inspection. I didn't receive a reply.

The files are 25 to 30 seconds long.

 

[Cassidy]

This has already been hand waved away back in the original thread. The spirits won't do tricks is what Cassidy/Flaccon was told when asked if the spirits could do anything useful or substantial. Instead the spirits like messing with hard drives and diamonds.

I don't think hand-waving it away, counts for a definite answer. This phenomena continues to be, and it steps up gears the more I work with it. They didn't wish to play card tricks. They wanted to break diamonds but it wasn't allowed.

Back then I assumed it was spirits in the PC, because my "learned" perception of a spirit (should one exist) is that it's "in the air" but this is a signal coming from wherever they are. They demonstrated that by cutting it dead during a few recordings on a friends PC.

 

[Cassidy]

Well, we must still wait for a serious million dollar challenge.

If this is pareidolia, and card tricks are the only way to prove their existence, then these spirits don't stand a chance to prove themselves. They can speak and break diamonds, amongst other things.

If disappearing noises can win the million, it should take a matter of 30 seconds to win it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKkJ9WlUESI

 

[Daylightstar]

...
No, this is not the same thing. Cassidy's claim is not dependent on the existence of spirits, whereas the moustache man's claim is. If Cassidy can demonstrate an impossible claim then it doesn't matter whether or not she believes that it's spirits that are responsible, and passing the test won't say anything about the existence or otherwise of spirits.

So Cassidy can produce unusual sound files? Is that it? Why would she win a million dollars for that?

 

[Cassidy]

I would think if your spooks had the ability to change the inside of a diamond to something else they would be able to change the entire diamond to something else or at least be able to levitate the diamond.

Your spooks suck. They don't even aspire to doing something measurable for the million dollars. Your spooks will rightfully stay in spook oblivion unless you come up with a measurable way the spooks can be verified.

I thought that too, but it's not to be. However, taking a perfect diamond and causing internal alterations, can be measured. Transferring their activity from PC to PC can be measured too.

What sucks is there's a million dollars in a vault, that the spirits are trying to release and hand to charity. So if you think they suck, at least their intentions don't.