Looking for Skeptics

[Pixel42]

4 and 5 are duplicates.

A bigger problem with your form is that flaccon doesn't know how to construct a test protocol so the answers she gives to your questions are unlikely to be useful. I think a better approach is to concentrate entirely on the claim, make sure it is specified clearly and unambiguously. Then we can scratch our collective heads and try to construct the protocol to test it.

 

[trustbutverify]

First you need to establish that there are spirits. You can't start with the assumption that there are spirits. Do you understand this? It's very important.

C'mon now.

 

[abaddon]

In other news, I happened upon a forgotten rinkydink USB webcam/mic combo, and I have two lappies with built in Chicony webcams and mics, so if flaccon is willing to outline step by step her process for creating these recordings, I have three platforms to try and replicate her results.

IOW, if flaccon gives the step by step process, I volunteer to rinse lather and repeat on the three suitable platforms and upload/distribute my results.

 

[Alderbank]

4 and 5 are duplicates.

A bigger problem with your form is that flaccon doesn't know how to construct a test protocol so the answers she gives to your questions are unlikely to be useful. I think a better approach is to concentrate entirely on the claim, make sure it is specified clearly and unambiguously. Then we can scratch our collective heads and try to construct the protocol to test it.

I agree


From the previous answers Tracey was finding it difficult to define her claim and asked for help. Our job is to give that help. The claim is the first and most important thing to state. However it's not set in stone and can be changed as the protocol develops.

Tracey, the advice I would give at the moment is not to try to write long complex answers. Just give short, simple answers, the first thing that comes into your head. We are not challenging you and we will help you define what you have experienced and how it can be demonstrated to other people.

ETA You are better off without Mr Roberts. He was not helping you or your claim

 

[Cassidy]

4 and 5 are duplicates.

A bigger problem with your form is that flaccon doesn't know how to construct a test protocol so the answers she gives to your questions are unlikely to be useful. I think a better approach is to concentrate entirely on the claim, make sure it is specified clearly and unambiguously. Then we can scratch our collective heads and try to construct the protocol to test it.

I think we could possibly try a preliminary test here online?

1. Two members generate a recording (normal vol) and remain silent for the duration of the recordings.
2. Each send each other their recordings, and identify any noise or interference before sending them through to me.
3. I will play them through this machine, and see if there are any significant differences made on the recordings that they originally generated.

I think it's worth a try before eliminating.

 

[tuxcat]

Okay I'll need to think about how I'm going to re-write it. Well actually maybe another more seasoned sceptic might like to help as I've never ever done a protocol before. When it comes to that stage!

So basically I should focus on the claim and get that set in concrete first, yes? Am I getting ahead of where we are and going too far ahead?

 

[bobwtfomg]

(snip) I will however continue to claim that I am in contact with my deceased Father.

hmm what jsfisher said

(snip) you need to work towards a demonstration that would make mundane explanations unlikely.

Since it got two votes for being a very good suggestion, I will repeat my earlier post yet again:

Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
flaccon,

If you are having trouble making a long post of your full claim, try a sequence of short ones, instead.

When stating your claim or claims, try to leave out as much interpretation as possible. For example, "the spirits alter the file'' is interpretative. The heart of the matter is that the file was altered. So, focus on that: In what observable way was it changed, and what effect did the change have?

Early on, you had the claim the voices you heard in the recordings were clear and distinct. You have since backed off that claim, but as statements of claims go, that one wasn't bad. You have also claimed the spirits can see what you see. Not so good a claim; it focuses on what you interpret is going on, not any sort of observable event.

I think the current claim is something like this: An audio file with no voices discernible by scrappy when first played on his computer when later played back after flaccon listens to a copy of the same file on her computer will match whatever flaccon heard.

Notice I dropped out all the spirits doing things to files and computers. That may well be what is happening, but we need to focus on the observable for now.

Is that what is being claimed? It seems to match what scrappy was saying. If it is, then the obvious follow-on question is does scrappy have to be told what you heard before he can hear it, too?

If the answer is no, then we have the basis for a protocol maybe. If yes, on the other hand, well, you should think about the implications that would have.

3rd vote from long time lurker on this thread

 

[tuxcat]

I think we could possibly try a preliminary test here online?

1. Two members generate a recording (normal vol) and remain silent for the duration of the recordings.
2. Each send each other their recordings, and identify any noise or interference before sending them through to me.
3. I will play them through this machine, and see if there are any significant differences made on the recordings that they originally generated.

I think it's worth a try before eliminating.

For no 2. I would say for them to take an MD5 hash of the file. Then 3, put the file into Box.com and someone will then do an MD5 hash of it to see whether or not the files are identical and any changes have taken place. As I understand it, the file should be altered once it's been at your end so if it's then uploaded again it should have changed?

 

[Pixel42]

So what is the claim that this test is testing? Be very precise and specific.

What is the procedure that should be used to generate the recordings? Again, be precise and specific. Spell it out step by step.

What is the success criteria, I.e what precisely needs to occur for the test result to constitute evidence for the claim? Remember it has to be self evident to everybody that the success criteria has been met.

 

[trustbutverify]

I think we could possibly try a preliminary test here online?

1. Two members generate a recording (normal vol) and remain silent for the duration of the recordings.
2. Each send each other their recordings, and identify any noise or interference before sending them through to me.
3. I will play them through this machine, and see if there are any significant differences made on the recordings that they originally generated.

I think it's worth a try before eliminating.

Excuse me, you're proposing to test your claim, and the results of that test will be determined by your own opinion?

Are you serious?

 

[Alderbank]

Okay I'll need to think about how I'm going to re-write it. Well actually maybe another more seasoned sceptic might like to help as I've never ever done a protocol before. When it comes to that stage!

So basically I should focus on the claim and get that set in concrete first, yes? Am I getting ahead of where we are and going too far ahead?

Yes you are!

For instance, flaccon might say 'the spirits can forecast next week's lottery but you can't hear them to test it'.

We might say 'can you hear them' 'Yes, if I hold the speakers to my ears.' 'Well it doesn't matter then whether we can hear them. The claim can be flaccon can forecast next week's lottery. The way she does it doesn't matter'

From that start we can then do tests. If we find they can only do Wednesday's lottery then the claim is modified. If they are wrong half the time as well, the claim becomes 'I can foretell Wednesday's lottery on average at least once a month'

Do you get the idea?

 

[tuxcat]

Yes you are!

For instance, flaccon might say 'the spirits can forecast next week's lottery but you can't hear them to test it'.

We might say 'can you hear them' 'Yes, if I hold the speakers to my ears.' 'Well it doesn't matter then whether we can hear them. The claim can be flaccon can forecast next week's lottery. The way she does it doesn't matter'

From that start we can then do tests. If we find they can only do Wednesday's lottery then the claim is modified. If they are wrong half the time as well, the claim becomes 'I can foretell Wednesday's lottery on average at least once a month'

Do you get the idea?

Right yes I see now - flaccon ignore my last post it's too premature!

 

[abaddon]

I think we could possibly try a preliminary test here online?

Certainly. I already violated the eleventh commandment, and volunteered a straightforward test of your procedures on the three platforms I have before me.

1. Two members generate a recording (normal vol) and remain silent for the duration of the recordings.

OK, you will need to provide the precise steps so that any volunteers replicate what you do. Otherwise, it would be open to the accusation that "you did it wrong".

2. Each send each other their recordings, and identify any noise or interference before sending them through to me.

OK, but again you need to precisely define the steps required for playback. It is of no use if later you can claim that it did not work because I used VLC while you used WMP to play back the files.

3. I will play them through this machine, and see if there are any significant differences made on the recordings that they originally generated.

I think it's worth a try before eliminating.

See above. If you want a quick hack, sure but that gets us nowhere. If you want progression then it really requires this level of precision. Believe it or not I am still willing to give this a go with you.

 

[Cassidy]

I agree


From the previous answers Tracey was finding it difficult to define her claim and asked for help. Our job is to give that help. The claim is the first and most important thing to state. However it's not set in stone and can be changed as the protocol develops.

Tracey, the advice I would give at the moment is not to try to write long complex answers. Just give short, simple answers, the first thing that comes into your head. We are not challenging you and we will help you define what you have experienced and how it can be demonstrated to other people.

ETA You are better off without Mr Roberts. He was not helping you or your claim

Had it not been for Mr Roberts I would not have discovered their ability to alter files. I do need a third party to work with me. Mr Roberts is happy to confirm who he is using his driving licence as requested.

Alderbank, the spirits are not psychic, nor can they control lady luck.

 

[jsfisher]

I think we could possibly try a preliminary test here online?

1. Two members generate a recording (normal vol) and remain silent for the duration of the recordings.
2. Each send each other their recordings, and identify any noise or interference before sending them through to me.
3. I will play them through this machine, and see if there are any significant differences made on the recordings that they originally generated.
I think it's worth a try before eliminating.

There's a problem with #3, highlighted. If you hear something in the recording, you may take that as proof of spirits talking, but it really doesn't do anything to discount the mundane pareidolia explanation.

Is there a second person (scrappy?) who can to make out the same voices as you? If so, we can take one step closer to a protocol.

Another possibility would be can what you hear be responsive to some question? It would need to be a question to which you do not already know the answer, but can be easily verified later. If so, we can take two big steps and a small leap closer to a protocol.

 

[Alderbank]

Certainly. I already violated the eleventh commandment, and volunteered a straightforward test of your procedures on the three platforms I have before me.

OK, you will need to provide the precise steps so that any volunteers replicate what you do. Otherwise, it would be open to the accusation that "you did it wrong".

OK, but again you need to precisely define the steps required for playback. It is of no use if later you can claim that it did not work because I used VLC while you used WMP to play back the files.

See above. If you want a quick hack, sure but that gets us nowhere. If you want progression then it really requires this level of precision. Believe it or not I am still willing to give this a go with you.

I've lost it somewhere, abaddon. What is the paranormal thing that this straightforward test would show?

 

[abaddon]

Excuse me, you're proposing to test your claim, and the results of that test will be determined by your own opinion?

Are you serious?

Well, yes, she is. But I will let that slide on the basis of the imprecision of language, and possibly lack of training. I am trying to get flaccon to engage in at least the start of a protocol.

 

[Alderbank]

Had it not been for Mr Roberts I would not have discovered their ability to alter files. I do need a third party to work with me. Mr Roberts is happy to confirm who he is using his driving licence as requested.

Alderbank, the spirits are not psychic, nor can they control lady luck.

OK, some things they can't do. That's progress. What can they do?

 

[Cassidy]

Certainly. I already violated the eleventh commandment, and volunteered a straightforward test of your procedures on the three platforms I have before me.

OK, you will need to provide the precise steps so that any volunteers replicate what you do. Otherwise, it would be open to the accusation that "you did it wrong".

OK, but again you need to precisely define the steps required for playback. It is of no use if later you can claim that it did not work because I used VLC while you used WMP to play back the files.

See above. If you want a quick hack, sure but that gets us nowhere. If you want progression then it really requires this level of precision. Believe it or not I am still willing to give this a go with you.

I use a Youcam app which produces WMV files. Mr Roberts and Mr Bulger used the same Youcam app.

Two members with youcam application required. If it is re-enacted the exact same way as twice/three times before, we may get the same results.

Step required for play-back; The two members send their "noise-identified" recordings via email. I will download them and play them back using windows media player.

 

[Alderbank]

I use a Youcam app which produces WMV files. Mr Roberts and Mr Bulger used the same Youcam app.

Two members with youcam application required. If it is re-enacted the exact same way as twice/three times before, we may get the same results.

Step required for play-back; The two members send their "noise-identified" recordings via email. I will download them and play them back using windows media player.

Mr Roberts and Mr Bulger are like Penn and Teller. Would you be able to persuade Mr Bulger to speak?

ETA Let's go for it. It's a great start