Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most impressive? I'm not here to impress anyone smart boy.

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I'm not asking you to entertain us.

I mean your clearest and most convincing examples. You have described hearing very clear and unambiguous examples. Will you let us hear those?
 
Just for the record, and whilst email addresses are being typed out, does any one care to send me a quiet recording via email? Using alternative applications, I did report that the spirits can get through on the 2 further apps I've tested so far, Audacity and Sound Recorder. However, it was not acknowledged.
 
How difficult it would be to produce the flimsy evidence I had at that point, but the evidence is growing, slowly but surely.
It is? I still haven't seen any objective evidence at all, and the more attempts I've seen to provide it the clearer it seems to me that there's nothing paranormal happening.

I will ask that, and will guess his reply to be "I am just a GP, I have no idea of the supernatural" This would hardly be an answer, but I'm only guessing.
Yes, he'll never tell you flat out that you're mistaken, he'll just continue to try to help you come to that realisation yourself or, failing that, to find a way of living with your beliefs that won't affect your health.
 
I think you misunderstood my meaning. I'm not asking you to entertain us.

I mean your clearest and most convincing examples. You have described hearing very clear and unambiguous examples. Will you let us hear those?

Flaccon 1 and Flaccon 2 (Bang! because of orders) I think they are pretty clear that a voice is present.

I can't make you believe these recordings are genuine, but that doesn't deter me from speaking the truth about them.
 
Just for fun I have been looking for an online demonstration of audio pardolia and I found these two clips that might be of some use is demonstrating the powerful effect of your brains desire to interpret noise to scrappy and flaccon.

Listen to audio clip number 1 a few times and write down what you hear.

"Oh, what do we say? Erection"
 
Sorry but what has been witnessed over the 20 years, has no logical explanation. I don't hear and see things and auto think "paranormal" I used to try searching for logic, but there just isn't any logic left to lean on.

Just because you can't explain it doesn't make it paranormal. That requires a massive leap of logic bigger than Becher's Brook. It remains that - unexplained. We have a ghost of the gaps situation here.

Spirits and ghosts have never ever been proven to exist in any controlled experiment. You are starting with the assumption that it's spirits and therefore cannot possibly be pareidolia. You need to open your mind a fair bit and accept the most likely explanations. So far, all those sounds have been proven to be pareidolia.
 
Flaccon 1 and Flaccon 2 (Bang! because of orders) I think they are pretty clear that a voice is present.

I can't make you believe these recordings are genuine, but that doesn't deter me from speaking the truth about them.

Yes, one of those very clearly has voices (and chirping) on it.

Sadly, you haven't convinced me that's not just a recording of people talking. I mean, one of them is you for goodness sake, and there's a pet budgie chipping in it's tuppence worth.


PS Do you keep a budgie?
 
Yes, one of those very clearly has voices (and chirping) on it.

Sadly, you haven't convinced me that's not just a recording of people talking. I mean, one of them is you for goodness sake, and there's a pet budgie chipping in it's tuppence worth.


PS Do you keep a budgie?

The other problem is that we have to take flaccon's word that it's not her shouting at some bloke. If it was done in a controlled situation, we could rule that out. Unfortunately, in science people's word isn't worth anything compared to a controlled environment.
 
What did you buy for £8.000?

2 funerals.

Could you explain why a religious funereal service, or even two of them, makes pareidolia a thing the Church should investigate?


Just for the record, and whilst email addresses are being typed out, does any one care to send me a quiet recording via email? Using alternative applications, I did report that the spirits can get through on the 2 further apps I've tested so far, Audacity and Sound Recorder. However, it was not acknowledged.

Thanks for clearing that up, flacccon.
This means Youcam isn't the only way the noise can be transmitted?
 
Yes, one of those very clearly has voices (and chirping) on it.

Sadly, you haven't convinced me that's not just a recording of people talking. I mean, one of them is you for goodness sake, and there's a pet budgie chipping in it's tuppence worth.


PS Do you keep a budgie?

I don't see where this is leading, Jack. Are you saying that a recording of people talking, or indeed any recording, could be evidence of the existence of spirits?

I can accept the recording as evidence that flaccon has a budgie. That is not extraordinary. However on the principle of ECREE I myself would not accept any distorted recording of speech as evidence of spirits. How could that work?

Also, flaccon says that flaccon1 and flaccon2 are the clearest and best evidence of the existence of spirits. These are very recent recordings and I hear nothing paranormal. What then did the best evidence for spirits before these recent recordings sound like?

Finally, I note that flaccon says that the budgie was not present during the recording and the budgie's voice has been added by the spirits. This is an extraordinary claim and I would expect more evidence for it than a single recording.
 
My best guess for this particular recording is that a couple (the woman of whom had a voice similar to yours) loitered outside the window of your library having a quiet conversation whilst you were making it, and you only noticed them when you played the recording back some time later. A car radio playing outside the window is another possibility.

To me, the specific sounds didn't occur with the frequency I'd expect of English-speakers (either American or British). There were more gutteral sounds, as if they were speaking a foreign language, German perhaps. But I didn't get the impression they were actual German-speakers.

It sounded more like a machine-enhanced mish-mash of human vocal sounds, which is why I immediately thought of that old thread I quoted a couple pages ago, that mentioned how some recording devices tried to enhance sounds into human speech.
 
In case anyone else is confused like I was, in the US "budgies" are known as "parakeets".
 
ETA: Ooo, unless someone else wants me to try something, we have 14 more days of trial left on this wonderfully poorly designed software. I am game to give anything a whirl.

Let me Photoshop you like one of my French girls.
 
Sorry but what has been witnessed over the 20 years, has no logical explanation. I don't hear and see things and auto think "paranormal" I used to try searching for logic, but there just isn't any logic left to lean on.

There are in fact logical explanations, which you have been offered. You reject them for no good reason.
 
I can accept the recording as evidence that flaccon has a budgie.


flaccon_1.wma:

I'm listening in a sound-proof, anechoic room with an array of 9 sets of loudspeakers powered by 7 amps.

My hearing tops out around 13k, which still exceeds the band-width here.

I'm playing back through an audio-editing app called Twisted Wave, on an Imac desktop model.

Even when I bring down the first annoying bang, and fade out the click at the end -- mostly to reduce annoyance and fatigue --

I don't hear any "budgy" or any other bird chirps.

I hear 1 woman and -- I think, though it's hard to tell -- probably two men.

The man or men do sound like they're speaking German, or something, but not English.

The reason I say this is that with this level of detail -- poor, but adequate for understanding -- we ought to be able to understand English words if that's what's being spoken.

With the aggressive noise-reduction or cell-phone-like data reduction in this recording, clues about ambience are being concealed, so it's hard for me to use one of my skills, which is determining the size and materials of the room by listening. You can see that the waveforms go down to absolute silence between bursts.

However.

It's my sense that all speakers are in rooms, and they are not too far from the mic or mics.

The quality is poor enough that you can't be sure.


The most obvious "chirping" effect is the whistling caused by the gated overtones of the woman speaker's voice. I don't hear an independent bird-sound. That whistling or chirping is very obvious.

I doubt there is something subtle that someone else is hearing that I'm not, given my gear and experience.

(I've recorded and processed a lot of bird-sounds in my day. I also taught electronic music, including basic audio production, at New England Conservatory for six years. I have over thirty-five years of audio production experience of various kinds. My ability to hear flaws generally outperformed the mix engineers I worked with. However, this doesn't mean I'm always right.)


> What budgies? Is there another recording?
I'd suggest making more recordings, as simply as possible, including some sample recordings of flaccon speaking normally, so we have some reference recordings.
 
Last edited:
I don't see where this is leading, Jack. Are you saying that a recording of people talking, or indeed any recording, could be evidence of the existence of spirits?

No. I'm not saying that. flaccon may imagine that a recording with no provenance might somehow become evidence, but I don't think that.

I can accept the recording as evidence that flaccon has a budgie. That is not extraordinary. However on the principle of ECREE I myself would not accept any distorted recording of speech as evidence of spirits. How could that work?

Also, flaccon says that flaccon1 and flaccon2 are the clearest and best evidence of the existence of spirits. These are very recent recordings and I hear nothing paranormal. What then did the best evidence for spirits before these recent recordings sound like?

Finally, I note that flaccon says that the budgie was not present during the recording and the budgie's voice has been added by the spirits. This is an extraordinary claim and I would expect more evidence for it than a single recording.

flaccon's claim is that none of the voices (including the budgie/parakeet) were present during the recording, but I think we have to be careful about what exactly she means.

That audio track was extracted from a video which apparently just shows flaccon sitting quietly. In which case, the audio is not contemporaneous with the pictures. The budgie was not present when the pictures were recorded. I fear we are having semantic games played upon us.
 
No bird on recording flaccon_1.

I'm 95% sure.

We need more recordings.

They don't have to be of anything, just her speaking.

Surely, that's not difficult.
 
The 'important message' from the spirits seems not to have been mentioned for hundreds, if not thousands?), of posts. I shall continue to read, though, because I find all the sceptics' responses interesting.
 
Doctors do something similar when they send someone with psychosomatic symptoms to a homeopath or similar - they know homeopathy doesn't really work, but when an illness is all in the mind then a cure which is also all in the mind may be what's required.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Doctors are just people, and many of them absolutely do believe in all kinds of silly things. Including homeopathy, which is not just available on the NHS, but there's even an entire hospital dedicated to a whole host of nonsense including homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal "medicine" and so on. It's possible that he's just played along with flaccon thinking it would be better for her health than just saying it's all nonsense, but it's also entirely possible that he believes every single thing she's ever claimed.

Importantly, it's all completely irrelevant. Unless he has actual evidence to support any of her claims, a doctor saying he believes her is no more use than a doctor saying he doesn't. It doesn't prove anything either way. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever what the exact wording of his letter was, it won't help flaccon prove her claims or help anyone else disprove them.

The same is true for the priest, except having already dedicated his life to believing in spirits, he's in an even worse position to support such claims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom