Looking for Skeptics

[Cassidy]

This is an important point. With the proposed new test, what will be the objective measure of whether or not anything has happened?

Is it to be the 3 people independently agree that they hear the same words?
Or is it to be that the recorded files are physically changed?

If it's the latter, how is that to be shown to have happened?

I ask because flaccon is very confident that the computer files are changed, but do we not already have an example of a file which had its MD5 hash "fingerprint" taken before being changed and the MD5 hash has not changed, indicating that the file has not actually changed at all?

I'm a little unclear on this point as I lost track of all the files variously exchanged and uploaded. I'd really appreciate it if someone could clear this up for me.

Jack, I am confident that the files (copies of) that have been sent to me so far, have altered the originals, including Jsfishers "VolNormInt" the original recording on his own machine altered at 0.21 seconds from there-on.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Jack, I am confident that the files (copies of) that have been sent to me so far, have altered the originals, including Jsfishers "VolNormInt" the original recording on his own machine altered at 0.21 seconds from there-on.

I can hear that there is a step change in the recorded level in that file. I can hear that the same thing is in the original version and the later version.

What evidence is there that this was not there to begin with?

 

[marplots]

What is the sound of one silent audio file clapping?

"Robin"

 

[Cassidy]

Say you made 10 new recordings with complete sentences on each from the dead. Say you documented each with exactly what those messages were. Say a skeptic randomly mixed up those 10 files, and removed the identifying documentation while numbering each one. Say scrappy had no contact at all with you after you made these audio files. Say the skeptic played each file for scrappy, in random order. Say scrappy wrote down exactly what he heard on each file. Say the skeptic compared your transcripts to scrappy's transcripts.

Do you claim the two sets of transcripts would be identical?

I have no idea the outcome. It isn't possible for Scrappy to familiarise himself with my recordings, nor I his, so I cannot predict the outcome. It is likely however, that it would be a success yes.

 

[Cassidy]

"Robin"

"VolNormInt" At 0.21 seconds, it becomes almost silent, and then begins to crackle. At 0.38/39, I hear a sound resembling con-tact Robin. It may not say that, it may not say anything at all. The point is, the original recording that did not have these differences on, now have these differences on.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The two "VolumeNormInt" files on box.com sound identical and they have identical MD5 hash codes too, which makes it infeasibly unlikely that there is any difference between the two files.

That means either both files changed identically or neither file changed.

What really matters then is what was the MD5 hash of the original file before flaccon listened to the copy.

Unfortunately I can't now find any reference to whether jsfisher noted the MD5 hash before sending the file to flaccon.

 

[Cassidy]

I can hear that there is a step change in the recorded level in that file. I can hear that the same thing is in the original version and the later version.

What evidence is there that this was not there to begin with?

If I asked js to send me a silent recording, on play-back I expect to hear no interferences, just silence, as silent as Alderbanks was after he uploaded his own personal "silent" recording.

I of course must trust that js listened and checked the sound files before sending me copies of them. Would js not have mentioned the obvious interferences at 0.21 seconds and from there-after, before sending me a copy?

 

[Cassidy]

Yes. No question about it. If you can change a computer file remotely by doing something to a copy of that file, then that would be astounding.

<edit> On the other hand, if what you can actually do is tell someone "this bit of burbly noise sounds a bit like 'Robin' don't you think?" and get them to agree, then that is not quite the same thing.

It isn't actually me that altered the files, I would say the spirits did that. I was just reporting the incidents.

 

[Daylightstar]

How will you demonstrate that a file has changed?

I have opened an account at Box.com. I can upload the changed file to there.

That does not answer the question.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Once it is established that both recordings have been correctly described, hopefully as silent. A copy of both recordings are then sent to my email address.. ...

again:

...
flaccon requests that participants who send their recordings to her, will have to identify noise and interference.
Will she do the same thing with her recordings?
Will the hypothetical voices appear on the same location in the file?

Is it perhaps is a good idea to agree on a standard for reporting on noise and interference?...

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Please explain how I am using trickery? If a member generates a file and sends me a copy of it, and I play that copy through my laptop, it alters the original file, on a different computer that I have NOT touched. Where on earth is the trickery.. ..

Who mentioned trickery?
You have provided no evidence that a file alters because a copy plays on your laptop.
The skeptics here are hoping to do a little trial with you to establish whether that happens or not .....

 

[Daylightstar]

flaccon, would you be so good to respond to this rather easy question? Thank you.

...
the spirits are coming through me and into the computer, manipulating the wires in order to manifest their voices.

I don't know what else to make of that explanation.
....

Do you mean that they go through your fingers into the computer because your fingers touch the keyboard, since your fingers connect you to your computer?

 

[Cassidy]

OK, let me see if I'm following this.

1. Forum members A and B generate recordings as directed by flaccon

2. A and B play back their recordings and make a note of any sounds or words they hear. They then generate an MD5 hash for the file.

3. A and B then send their files, notes and hashes to each other. They send the files only to flaccon

4. A and B listen to each other's recordings and verify the notes and hashes are correct

5. flaccon plays back the two recordings and makes a note of any words she thinks she hears. She sends them to forum member C.

6. A and B listen again to their own and each other's recordings, and make a note of any words they can now hear that were not apparent before. They send the results to C. They also regenerate the hashes.

7. C posts what words A, B and flaccon say they heard

So what's the success criteria? That all 3 hear the same words? That the hashes change?

If we don't look for "voices" (for now) we can immediately eliminate Paredolia. If we look for "differences" after I have played the recordings through this machine. It is likely that if they cannot break through with voice, they will at least alter the original recording in some way. Do you agree to 30 seconds of silent (WMV - Vol normal) recordings from each participant?

 

[Cassidy]

flaccon, would you be so good to respond to this rather easy question? Thank you.

Sorry for the delay. Yes, they say they travel through the fingers into the machine, and manifest their speech through electric wires. They also said that when they entered into Mr Roberts laptop, they then travelled into his fingers, giving him protection. I do not know how to explain this form of "protection" without starting from the very beginning, and there is no point of explaining that, until we have established that something supernatural is happening. (all positive btw)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If I asked js to send me a silent recording, on play-back I expect to hear no interferences, just silence, as silent as Alderbanks was after he uploaded his own personal "silent" recording.

I of course must trust that js listened and checked the sound files before sending me copies of them. Would js not have mentioned the obvious interferences at 0.21 seconds and from there-after, before sending me a copy?

Only jsfisher can answer that. It depends on whether he listened with the volume turned up far enough to listen to the residual noise, and happened to notice that the gain changes partway through following a thump (which sounds to me like some kind of mundane automatic gain ranging control rather than any mysterious thing attempting to communicate).

It isn't actually me that altered the files, I would say the spirits did that. I was just reporting the incidents.

I appreciate that you don't do anything to alter the files, you just listen to them.

By the way, whatever application jsfisher used to record the files seems to work adequately well for your purposes, so perhaps that can get us around the problem of people otherwise having to purchase the particular app that you use yourself.

 

[Cassidy]

Only jsfisher can answer that. It depends on whether he listened with the volume turned up far enough to listen to the residual noise, and happened to notice that the gain changes partway through following a thump (which sounds to me like some kind of mundane automatic gain ranging control rather than any mysterious thing attempting to communicate).



I appreciate that you don't do anything to alter the files, you just listen to them.

By the way, whatever application jsfisher used to record the files seems to work adequately well for your purposes, so perhaps that can get us around the problem of people otherwise having to purchase the particular app that you use yourself.

I recall js mentioning a "constant" background noise of rain. I will need to find this post. VolUpInt also reduces to silence towards the end.

I am sure Cyberlink Youcam is a free software.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Having listened with more care to jsfisher's "VolumeNormInt" files, whatever the clonk noise is at 21-22 seconds in, it's not alone.

The noise occurs regularly, about every 6 seconds like clockwork, although some of them appear to be lost in the more crackly portion of the recording where the recoded level comes and goes. You can hear the noise repeat at about 3 seconds, 22 seconds, 29 seconds, 34 seconds and 40 seconds.

The slight reverberance of the sound suggests it's something acoustic in the room where the recording was made, though digital recording can play tricks at its limits. If there's something in jsfisher's home which produces that noise, s/he's probably so used to it that it goes unnoticed.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I recall js mentioning a "constant" background noise of rain. I will need to find this post. VolUpInt also reduces to silence towards the end.

I am sure Cyberlink Youcam is a free software.

If it was raining, perhaps the clonk noises are a drip on a windowsill.

VolUpInt doesn't sound to me as if it reduces to silence toward the end. It's got a bit of the same flickery sound of the gain changing that VolumeNormInt has, but otherwise the only sound is a bit of bumping at about 21 seconds which sounds like someone moving around, perhaps in another room.

You may have an older version of Cyberlink Youcam. It appears to be available now for purchase or as a time limited free trial of version 5.

 

[jsfisher]

I recall js mentioning a "constant" background noise of rain. I will need to find this post. VolUpInt also reduces to silence towards the end.

All throughout this thread, the phrase, "a silent recording", has meant many things except actual silence. You may recall early on the suggestion to use Audacity to produce an audio file of true silence. That didn't work for you at all, and possibly because it was, well, silent.

You described the conditions under which you made some of your recordings (remember mentioning birds?); I tried to do the same. The laptop used (and I even told you the model) was in a room with an overhead ceiling fan running. Outside, a storm was raging a bit. General background noise I expected, but I found the number of recording artifacts rather surprising, actually, but believing I had mimicked your general methodology, I forwarded you the file and two others all in good faith.

I also posted the individual hashes for the three files. Were the files to change, then the hashes would not later match. Yet, they do.

I am sure Cyberlink Youcam is a free software.

Cyberlink is clear that it is not free. There is a try-before-you-buy trial available, but the product is not free. And before we go any further down this path, I'll remind everyone of Rule 1 in the Membership Agreement.

 

[chillzero]

flaccon,
have you ever followed your usual routine and asked the spirits not to alter the files? If so, what happened when you played back?