Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
abaddon said:
I could probably cobble a Linux box together, but it might be more productive to ask flaccon if the voices appear in other apps, because that Youcam seems dedicated to compressing the bejeezus out of everything for easy youtube submission. And I very much doubt that a selection of JREF denizens would be willing to spring for this. I know I wouldn't.
Click to expand...

What is the actual role of Youcam in this protocol please, abaddon? Is it there to produce a lot of compression artefacts rather like WMV?
 
Paul2 said:
I hesitate to throw in my two cents, as too many cooks can spoil the protocol, so if this muddies the waters, please reject it, BUT

I think it's better to start with the *claim* first, get that solid, and then figure out what a test might look like.

Is the claim, perhaps, that the above procedure would test,

1. "my computer (only mine? or others' computers too?) will change the computer file of a sound recording merely by playing it on my computer."

2. "when played on my computer, a computer file (edited: the same computer file) will sound different than when played on anyone else's computer"

Is your claim more specific than that the sound files are merely changed, perhaps that words are clearly (or barely) heard when played on your computer that are absent on others' computers?

Or some variation of the above?
Click to expand...

If this procedure was tested and successful for a third time, but under more strict observation, I believe I have grounds for a fair claim (yet to be worded)

If the recordings alter as I play them through my laptop, I expect that the original files that the participants have on their own computers will alter in the same manner.
 
scrappy was supposed to use the same app, but uses a different frame size and different data rate, different bit rate and different frame rate than flaccon.
Flaccon has also varied her frame sizes. This may impact audio handling.

How much difference does the app brand really make then?
 
Last edited:
flaccon said:
If this procedure was tested and successful for a third time, but under more strict observation, I believe I have grounds for a fair claim (yet to be worded)

If the recordings alter as I play them through my laptop, I expect that the original files that the participants have on their own computers will alter in the same manner.
Click to expand...

Great! But let me clarify one thing. Are you saying that it's just the playback through your and others' computer that is changed, but the computer sound files are unchanged, or that the computer sound file itself is changed?
 
Paul2 said:
That's good, that's a revision of my proposed claim, this is an actual claim that the protocol can be measured against.

Flaccon, does the above describe what you (and scrappy and Mr. Bulger) are claiming?
Click to expand...

Not quite, there are no background noises when I press record. It is completely silent and I keep perfectly still. I do not hold wires or speakers.

I do know for certain that Mr Roberts (who is currently suspended from the site) had a silent generated recording made in Feb 2013. When he sent this through to me in late June, it dramatically altered as I played it through this laptop. Mr Roberts then played his own silent original on his own machine, and that had also altered with the same noise that I hear.
 
Paul2 said:
Great! But let me clarify one thing. Are you saying that it's just the playback through your and others' computer that is changed, but the computer sound files are unchanged, or that the computer sound file itself is changed?
Click to expand...

Just the play-back on this computer only, should alter (identically) the original sound file on the participants computer.
 
flaccon said:
Not quite, there are no background noises when I press record. It is completely silent and I keep perfectly still. I do not hold wires or speakers.

I do know for certain that Mr Roberts (who is currently suspended from the site) had a silent generated recording made in Feb 2013. When he sent this through to me in late June, it dramatically altered as I played it through this laptop. Mr Roberts then played his own silent original on his own machine, and that had also altered with the same noise that I hear.
Click to expand...

OK, I understand. Everything is quiet when the recordings are made.

Thanks!
 
flaccon said:
Not quite, there are no background noises when I press record. It is completely silent and I keep perfectly still. I do not hold wires or speakers.

I do know for certain that Mr Roberts (who is currently suspended from the site) had a silent generated recording made in Feb 2013. When he sent this through to me in late June, it dramatically altered as I played it through this laptop. Mr Roberts then played his own silent original on his own machine, and that had also altered with the same noise that I hear.
Click to expand...


How about we let scrappy create a silent recording then? He can forward it to someone here for examination and archival before forwarding it on to you.
 
Alderbank said:
What is the actual role of Youcam in this protocol please, abaddon? Is it there to produce a lot of compression artefacts rather like WMV?
Click to expand...
It is what flaccon uses to produce the results she thinks she gets. If we are to reproduce what she thinks she gets, we must follow her exact process. Her process is to use this Youcam as a recorder, a commercial product. If you want to replicate her process, you need this software. Should you be willing, you could buy it, or at least avail of the 30 day freebie trial, but from my reading, one of their marketing ploys is that they will compress you stuff to hell and gone. This, of course is fine if you want to upload youtubes for friends, family, enemies, whatever. However, this will also perforce include compression artefacts. For it's intended use, this is acceptable. For flaccon's intended use, it most certainly is not. For flaccon's intended use this is a software piece almost guaranteed to add what she wants.
 
flaccon said:
Just the play-back on this computer only, should alter (identically) the original sound file on the participants computer.
Click to expand...

OK, so the original sound file gets changed, both the computer file itself, and, of course, how it sounds when its played.

Now, on your computer, is the sound file itself changed, or is it just how it sounds when its played back on your computer that is changed?

ETA: or maybe you don't know if the sound file itself has changed, you just play it and hear the changes.
 
Last edited:
Pardon me, I unquit to post the following info for flaccon:



A sockpuppet is a second account created by a member. There has not been a suspension on jref since June 27. Unless there's a delay between the decision to suspend and its subsequent announcement and implementation, I don't see that Scrappy has been suspended at all.
 
jsfisher said:
How about we let scrappy create a silent recording then? He can forward it to someone here for examination and archival before forwarding it on to you.
Click to expand...

Scrappy cannot produce a silent recording no more. Since late June, he has a frequency and a voice running through every recording he makes.
 
abaddon said:
It is what flaccon uses to produce the results she thinks she gets. If we are to reproduce what she thinks she gets, we must follow her exact process. Her process is to use this Youcam as a recorder, a commercial product. If you want to replicate her process, you need this software. Should you be willing, you could buy it, or at least avail of the 30 day freebie trial, but from my reading, one of their marketing ploys is that they will compress you stuff to hell and gone. This, of course is fine if you want to upload youtubes for friends, family, enemies, whatever. However, this will also perforce include compression artefacts. For it's intended use, this is acceptable. For flaccon's intended use, it most certainly is not. For flaccon's intended use this is a software piece almost guaranteed to add what she wants.
Click to expand...

One of these is not like the other. Do we have an impasse?
 
Maurice Ledifficile said:
Pardon me, I unquit to post the following info for flaccon:



A sockpuppet is a second account created by a member. There has not been a suspension on jref since June 27. Unless there's a delay between the decision to suspend and its subsequent announcement and implementation, I don't see that Scrappy has been suspended at all.
Click to expand...

Thank you Maurice. It is only a short suspension, he just needs to provide driving licence proof that he is a real person.
 
Daylightstar said:
scrappy was supposed to use the same app, but uses a different frame size and different data rate, different bit rate and different frame rate than flaccon.
Flaccon has also varied her frame sizes. This may impact audio handling.

How much difference does the app brand really make then?
Click to expand...
A lot. I used Adobe premiere with a Mira video card to capture full res video from a VHS recorder, edit, then record back to VHS. It worked because those tools were designed to do exactly that.

The tool that flaccon used is designed to maximise compression. I haven't downloaded it. I am sure it does its job as advertised perfectly well. The problem here is that straight out of the box flaccon is using a banana to pick a lock.
 
Last edited:
flaccon said:
Thank you Maurice. It is only a short suspension, he just needs to provide driving licence proof that he is a real person.
Click to expand...

It should get sorted out, then. He seems real enough to me. If he was a sockpuppet, his account and the other accounts involved would be banned.



[Carry on...]
 
Last edited:
flaccon said:
I do not hold wires or speakers.
Click to expand...

Then what did you mean about having "special fingers" (a claim you've repeated several times), and why did you write "they get through to the electric wires through my fingers" [italics added for emphasis]?

Moreover, you've written in this thread that you do hold speakers, and according to your own account, you put a speaker into Alderbanks hand and "suggested he hold it closer to his ear". Here:

flaccon said:
Alderbank sat and looked at the speaker in front of him, his ear approximately 1.5 to 2 feet away from it. I then chose the more louder recordings, the raw EVP and the full sentence that my Father had spoken to my brother in his own tone. I then picked up Alderbanks speaker and suggested he hold it closer to his ear. Alderbank took the speaker and aimed it towards his ear. [snip etc.]
Click to expand...

flaccon said:
No, originally I made a recording via youcam, to try to catch the long creaks that were running down the walls (2.5 years ago) On play-back I got a sentence come through, and no creak was present. I didn't record again til Oct 2012. I hold the speaker to listen in yes, sometimes it is loud enough so I don't need to hold the speaker. As I record, everything is completely silent, my speakers or any wires are not touched.
Click to expand...

So by your own account, you do "hold the speaker to listen in", and you suggested Alderbank do the same and, indeed, handed him a speaker to ensure he do so.

Then you wrote "I do not hold wires or speakers".

You are either honestly mistaken or you are lying. Which is it? I refine and reiterate my theory to explain that when you hold the speakers, it jostles the speaker wires, causing the wire jack to rub against/inside the port, creating friction noises which are amplified through the speaker, and which you interpret as voices.
 
Paul2 said:
OK, so the original sound file gets changed, both the computer file itself, and, of course, how it sounds when its played.

Now, on your computer, is the sound file itself changed, or is it just how it sounds when its played back on your computer that is changed?

ETA: or maybe you don't know if the sound file itself has changed, you just play it and hear the changes.
Click to expand...

The sound file itself changed.
 
Alderbank said:
One of these is not like the other. Do we have an impasse?
Click to expand...
Possibly. The software flaccon suggested costs, and is virtually guaranteed to add artefacts. This is why I asked if flaccon could reproduce the same effects in other software (a question which remains unanswered).

If the answer to that question is no, then I could get the 30 day freebie trial on my gear as could anyone here, but better to get other matters straightened out so that we all get the same 30 day window for testing. Ultimately, it makes things harder for flaccon. No idea why she chooses this way of doing things although I admit to certain suspicions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom