Looking for Skeptics

[Cassidy]

You still didn't tell me, is flaccon the name "tracey" in the mirror?

flacon@ resembles tracey. Looks to be both upside down and backwards.
(I really need to search the post regarding Da Vinci, that's a strange one)

 

[Cassidy]

flaccon, if I may be personal, may I ask at what age you first became the subject of these hauntings? It's certainly fine if you do not wish to answer.

I can answer these days, now I have back-up. I was 31, studying Psychology, self-employed, and raising 3 children, at that time aged 12.5, 11 and 5.

 

[Stray Cat]

Yes tests have been done. I have done the testing,

You have shown here that you don't understand what constitutes a test, further you keep showing that you don't understand the technology you are using nor the terminology we are using so forgive me for not having much confidence in any 'test' that you may think you have done.

I don't even have confidence in the quick test I managed to do this morning and I know what I'm doing and have shared my exact method and results with everyone so that objective replication and verification is possible (part of the testing process).

But really what it is important to know at the moment is did you listen to the file I uploaded for you?
Is it a fair representation of what you hear when you turn up your speakers loud and listen to the files yourself?
Unless you tell me "yes" or "no" I have no idea if something has gone wrong somewhere down the line. If you can confirm you still hear the voices in the file I've processed, I can do the others using the same method.

and gathered enough witnesses to rule out a delusion of any kind.

Witness to what?
Is your definition of a witness simply someone who agrees with you?

Because it's no surprise that people who agree with you will agree with you. It speaks nothing of objectivity and mass illusion/delusion is entirely possible (not that anyone is saying pareidolia is a delusion).

Further investigation is necessary.

Yes, regardless of how this plays out I would suggest someone professionally qualified should thoroughly investigate something.

Witnesses with solid profession, clean background, "common sense"

None of these things are important. Really the only qualification a witness has to have is that they objectively witness something. Mostly the only thing they need to be qualified in is seeing stuff. Of course you're still jumping the gun slightly as we haven't even confirmed there's anything for a witness to witness.

Hands-on is the only real approach to this.

No, you have tried the hands on approach yourself and it hasn't produced anything as yet (except alienating yourself from some of your friends, a doctor and a few bishops). What you need to do now is try another way stand back a few steps and take a more objective approach.

 

[Cassidy]

Wow, are you really not following along here? This was a way to get a sound file that was not picking up noise in the environment or from your computer, just dead silence.

If you followed the directions in my post you should not have "recorded" anything.
You did not hit the record button at all, is that correct?

No, I selected silence, and hit record. If I was supposed to get silence, I didn't. They are not actually being recorded, so maybe any future recordings I do that way, should eliminate the noisy twittering birds outside? Or maybe if I speak during the "silent" recording. I must try this.

 

[Biscuit]

If Paredolia isn't a suffering, and assuming I have Paredolia, then why am I experiencing Paradolia to the point of suffering?

I have no idea what is causing your suffering but it's not pareidolia. It's a perfectly natural phenomenon that has occurred in every single human being from the dawn of time. IIRC it is a survival mechanism originally designed to help us distinguished camouflaged threats. It's normal and nothing to be worried about. It's actually a great deal more fascinating to me then claims of talking to the dead.

We want to distinguish pareidolia from art because we want to know something about how the image came to be. We want to know who the author is. Is it authored by another being or merely "authored" by my own mind?

Pareidolia is always "authored" by ones own brain. Seeing something in a piece of art can be pareidolia but it is not the default position as art is interpretive and subjective. In fact the definition of "art" is subjective. Hearing voices of the dead has a default position of pareidolia for skeptics because it has never been shown to be anything else. That's why we want to do some simple experiments to rule it out before we move forward.

 

[Stray Cat]

I have been sitting wracking my brains as to why there is a great loss of volume after transference of files through the net. I think I know why, or at least, it's the most plausible answer I can find.. The spirits are not actually being recorded as I hit "record" So maybe this has to do with the loss of volume after transference? I don't know, but there will be a reason for the volume loss.

You say you've played these files down the phone to other people who have heard the voices you played to them. So the voices must be on the recordings for that to have happened.

But I totally agree that the "most plausible answer" is that "the spirits are not actually being recorded".

 

[Cassidy]

You have shown here that you don't understand what constitutes a test, further you keep showing that you don't understand the technology you are using nor the terminology we are using so forgive me for not having much confidence in any 'test' that you may think you have done.

I don't even have confidence in the quick test I managed to do this morning and I know what I'm doing and have shared my exact method and results with everyone so that objective replication and verification is possible (part of the testing process).

But really what it is important to know at the moment is did you listen to the file I uploaded for you?
Is it a fair representation of what you hear when you turn up your speakers loud and listen to the files yourself?
Unless you tell me "yes" or "no" I have no idea if something has gone wrong somewhere down the line. If you can confirm you still hear the voices in the file I've processed, I can do the others using the same method.


Witness to what?
Is your definition of a witness simply someone who agrees with you?

Because it's no surprise that people who agree with you will agree with you. It speaks nothing of objectivity and mass illusion/delusion is entirely possible (not that anyone is saying pareidolia is a delusion).


Yes, regardless of how this plays out I would suggest someone professionally qualified should thoroughly investigate something.


None of these things are important. Really the only qualification a witness has to have is that they objectively witness something. Mostly the only thing they need to be qualified in is seeing stuff. Of course you're still jumping the gun slightly as we haven't even confirmed there's anything for a witness to witness.


No, you have tried the hands on approach yourself and it hasn't produced anything as yet (except alienating yourself from some of your friends, a doctor and a few bishops). What you need to do now is try another way stand back a few steps and take a more objective approach.

I haven't alienated myself from friends and a doctor. This is "guesswork" and not even an educated guess. The doctor is a general practitioner, and cannot offer his professional help, so as I do not require further medical assistance, he wrote me a concerned letter, aimed towards the Bishop, who still refuses to assist me, and suggested that I "keep the ball rolling" The Doctor is awaiting my next appointment, and is retrieving files dating back 30 years, to compare full blood results. (This is when I receive my full analysis via the post)

The GP, and the statement "keep the ball rolling" was witnessed by a third party. I am 100% convinced that we heard the same statement. The GP opened his mouth and words were formed, English words. This witness and myself have no history of deafness.

 

[Stray Cat]

I haven't alienated myself from friends and a doctor. This is "guesswork" and not even an educated guess. The doctor is a general practitioner, and cannot offer his professional help, so as I do not require further medical assistance, he wrote me a concerned letter, aimed towards the Bishop, who still refuses to assist me, and suggested that I "keep the ball rolling" The Doctor is awaiting my next appointment, and is retrieving files dating back 30 years, to compare full blood results. (This is when I receive my full analysis via the post)

The GP, and the statement "keep the ball rolling" was witnessed by a third party. I am 100% convinced that we heard the same statement. The GP opened his mouth and words were formed, English words. This witness and myself have no history of deafness.

Sorry Flaccon your nonsensical rambling to one side, you appear to have missed out the most important part of my post, instead choosing to respond only to the least important part, this is mostly my own fault for giving you an opportunity to prevaricate, I'll try not to do it again;

But really what it is important to know at the moment is did you listen to the file I uploaded for you?
Is it a fair representation of what you hear when you turn up your speakers loud and listen to the files yourself?
Unless you tell me "yes" or "no" I have no idea if something has gone wrong somewhere down the line. If you can confirm you still hear the voices in the file I've processed, I can do the others using the same method.

 

[Cassidy]

You say you've played these files down the phone to other people who have heard the voices you played to them. So the voices must be on the recordings for that to have happened.

But I totally agree that the "most plausible answer" is that "the spirits are not actually being recorded".

Simple and effective test, even though I am not qualified, I still understand results.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I have been sitting wracking my brains as to why there is a great loss of volume after transference of files through the net. I think I know why, or at least, it's the most plausible answer I can find.. The spirits are not actually being recorded as I hit "record" So maybe this has to do with the loss of volume after transference? I don't know, but there will be a reason for the volume loss.

I might have a more mundane explanation than that.

I gather that you are listening to recordings on a laptop, played out through the laptop's headphone socket straight into a pair of powered loudspeakers which are turned up loud. Is that correct?

I suspect your laptop's output is noisy. (Mine is too. There's a distinct hiss all the time.)

If you download the files which you emailed and play them back, do you still hear the noise at the level you expected? (Let's not for the moment worry about whether the noise contains voices, just whether it's replaying for you at about the same volume as you intended others to hear it.)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Simple and effective test, even though I am not qualified, I still understand results.

A simple and effective test would need to be an objective test for its results to be evidence.

For example, asking the spirits to tell you something which you don't already know but which is verifiable, such as Pixel42's name, or the colour of a playing card.

 

[Cassidy]

Sorry Flaccon your nonsensical rambling to one side, you appear to have missed out the most important part of my post, instead choosing to respond only to the least important part, this is mostly my own fault for giving you an opportunity to prevaricate, I'll try not to do it again;

What one perceives as important, may not be perceived as important to the next person. The GP explanation above, is not important to you because you cannot search for a box to tick.

 

[Biscuit]

nevermind

 

[marplots]

Pareidolia is always "authored" by ones own brain. Seeing something in a piece of art can be pareidolia but it is not the default position as art is interpretive and subjective. In fact the definition of "art" is subjective. Hearing voices of the dead has a default position of pareidolia for skeptics because it has never been shown to be anything else. That's why we want to do some simple experiments to rule it out before we move forward.

But aren't these two separate issues?

The first would be whether or not there's a "there" there. In other words, pareidolia or actual recognition of an authored (rather than random) sound which seems to be a recognizable voice.

The second issue is the source of the sounds, spirits are a possibility, but hoax would be another, and there are likely many more.

I'm still on the first issue because I don't hear anything that sounds like speech in the file posted.

 

[Stray Cat]

What one perceives as important, may not be perceived as important to the next person. The GP explanation above, is not important to you because you cannot search for a box to tick.

But really what it is important for me to know at the moment is did you listen to the file I uploaded for you?
Is it a fair representation of what you hear when you turn up your speakers loud and listen to the files yourself?
Unless you tell me "yes" or "no" I have no idea if something has gone wrong somewhere down the line. If you can confirm you still hear the voices in the file I've processed, I can do the others using the same method.

If you're not interested in following it up, that's OK, I do have better things to be getting on with too, but it's always good to at least try and help people.

 

[Cassidy]

Here you go then:

File labelled; 'Test 2 Father's voice' (processed as described above)
https://soundcloud.com/the-psycho-clown/audiotest

Flaccon; If at any time you want me to delete the file, just ask.

Ouch that's terrible. Its way distorted and over-bearing. No it's nothing like the original recording. It is fine and thanks for asking, keep the files anywhere, they are obviously useless after a transfer. Nice test.

 

[Stray Cat]

Simple and effective test, even though I am not qualified, I still understand results.

But your results appear to contradict what you are now claiming.

If you have played the files down the phone and other people have agreed with you that they can hear the same voices saying the same things as you can hear, then the voices must be recorded onto the file.

But now you're saying that they aren't.

If this is a simple test at all it certainly isn't effective as the results aren't consistent. An effective test would produce consistent and ultimately predictable results.

 

[Cassidy]

Ouch that's terrible. Its way distorted and over-bearing. No it's nothing like the original recording. It is fine and thanks for asking, keep the files anywhere, they are obviously useless after a transfer. Nice test.

Also, the dog bark at 0.2 ? played without a transfer, the word is identified as "Evidence" shouted out in Reg's tone (Father)

 

[Cassidy]

But your results appear to contradict what you are now claiming.

If you have played the files down the phone and other people have agreed with you that they can hear the same voices saying the same things as you can hear, then the voices must be recorded onto the file.

But now you're saying that they aren't.

If this is a simple test at all it certainly isn't effective as the results aren't consistent. An effective test would produce consistent and ultimately predictable results.

Due to the spirits always claiming that the electric cables/wires are more important than the computer itself, I got to wondering (as one does) I tested how they were actually getting through. Instead of asking a question, pressing record, and playback, I pressed record, then stop. Then I asked for a phrase to be repeated, and then pressed playback. It is successful every time. They are not being recorded as such.

You may not see this as an excellent test, but I believe it was.

 

[Hokulele]

Due to the spirits always claiming that the electric cables/wires are more important than the computer itself, I got to wondering (as one does) I tested how they were actually getting through. Instead of asking a question, pressing record, and playback, I pressed record, then stop. Then I asked for a phrase to be repeated, and then pressed playback. It is successful every time. They are not being recorded as such.

In that case, it is almost guaranteed paraedolia, in that you are already listening for something specific, so the chances are, you will hear it. That is similar to how people are keyed to hear their own names in random noise more often than other people's names.