Looking for Skeptics

[chillzero]

You know, I know we asked the questions months ago, and I don't want to go too far into AAH territory, but this tag-team posting by flaccon and scrappy (basically posting on flaccon's behalf and disclosing such intimate details as what went on during visits to her GP) is quite suspicious.

I have to say I still think there is more going on behind the scenes than we can see.

Yup.
I asked flaccon to clarify what she permitted scrappy to discuss, and the answer has ... not been helpful.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Flaccon sorted all the above out and sent it off well over a month ago. Flaccon received a silent recording from the organiser, she heard nothing from them for over two weeks after that. . .

What was she supposed to do with the silent recording?

What did she do with it?

 

[Daylightstar]

...The file you have sent me is another blacked out video clip of about 20 seconds, ... There's a quiet, muffled man's voice at the start saying a few words ...
I attempted to upload a (renamed) version of the file here, but at 1.5MB it's 5 times bigger than the limit for zipped files. If you would like others to hear it, I suggest you either request Alderbank to host it as he already has a free box.com account, or you sign up here and get one of your own: https://app.box.com/signup/personal/
...

The log on details ended up with abaddon and jsfisher.
Perhaps any of them is able and willing to put it in the box.com collection.

Alternatively, you might want to extract the audio from the video file, you'll have a much smaller file, visible right here.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I did set about copying just the audio with Audacity, but then I didn't know if scrappy might object to any tampering. And the more I thought about that, the more I realised that I had no idea what point scrappy intended to make with the clip.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

flaccon said she was going to have the blood DNA matched with Jesus's blood. We have heard nothing since. I suspect she might not have found a laboratory able to do this.

At one point in this monster of a thread flaccon casually asked what we thought of the Shroud of Turin. She may be under the impression that human blood was found on the shroud, although AFAIK this was never proved. For fear of breaking my brain I won't speculate as to how flaccon thinks Jesus' blood could be identified as such.

 

[Alderbank]

I did set about copying just the audio with Audacity, but then I didn't know if scrappy might object to any tampering. And the more I thought about that, the more I realised that I had no idea what point scrappy intended to make with the clip.

Jack, I have PM'd you the login details if you wish to upload any files to Box.com/alderbank.

I have no idea what scrappy will do with them either

 

[Alice Shortcake]

The Gp is witnessing evidence that supports her claims. Last week the Gp told her that he hears and see's clearly, he also asked her did she still have the original stains.

Scrappy, you're doing it again - passing on personal information about an event at which (presumably) you weren't present.

Either this GP needs to be struck off the register ASAP or, and I think this is far more likely, flaccon is hearing what she wants to hear, not what he's really saying.

And you still haven't answered the question of how anyone can identify a sample of Jesus' blood to compare it with another sample.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Thanks for the information, Scrappy. Maybe flaccon should ask her GP to write an order for the blood test so her health insurance would cover the cost.

She's British, so her GP would be with the NHS, and she won't have insurance. I would ordinarily say that a GP wouldn't waste NHS resources with a DNA test of random blood but if, as flaccon claims, he does believe her completely, then perhaps he would.

Ask him, flaccon. That should, at the very least, be an indicator of whether or not he really believes you.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Thanks Alderbank. I just uploaded scrappy's file.

https://app.box.com/alderbank

I took the slight liberty of renaming it "scrappy's file renamed.wmv" so you can all have fun trying to decide what the voice says.

I figured if you have a noisy recording of an indistinct voice which sounds like;

"shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh mum mam mamumum mam shhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

And you think it says;

"...................... the cat sat on the mat ..............................."

It rather spoils the fun if you post it up as a file called "The cat sat on the mat.wmv"

 

[scrappy]

Flaccon,

Okay, now I'm really confused. I thought I understood your explanation of how the voices entered recordings, or rather your best guess as to how it happens - I get that you're not claiming to possess any high-tech skills and can only share your personal observations - but I'm afraid I may have "overthought" to a point of completely misunderstanding the process. If I have, I apologize.

Would you (or anyone here) clarify some things to help me out?

_ Regarding the earlier recordings discussed here: These recordings needed to be made in a quiet environment so that the spirits' voices would easily stand out in playback. Recording with the microphone muted wouldn't work because the spirits use wires and cables (channeling through flaccon's fingers) to enter the file, not the computer itself. Muting the microphone cuts off the path they travel. Is this correct?

The spirits insert words into the recording as you (flaccon) listen to the playback, not during the recording itself. If you sent someone a copy of the recording before you listened to it, that copy would remain unaltered, unless you "calibrated" that person's computer, as you did with Mr. Roberts' (Scrappy's) laptop in mid-June. Once a computer is calibrated, voices will be heard in recordings made by that person; a kind of chain-reaction occurs. Is this correct?

_ Regarding the YouTube videos: The videos are altered in the same manner as the private recordings, using you (flaccon) as the conduit to access the file. The spirits require both flaccon's physical presence and electric wires and cables. In other words, Scrappy playing a video to flaccon over a phone line has no effect. Once flaccon views the YouTube video on her computer, words are added and when Scrappy replays the same clip, he hears the altered version. Is this correct?

Also, does the video need to be refreshed, or will the inserted words be heard even if it's replayed from the browser cache or from a local copy saved to a personal computer using a video capture app?

Calibrating individual computers is no longer necessary. Flaccon's physical self is still required, but the spirits have learned how to alter the original (uploader's) copy independently. The result is that anyone viewing the video will hear the voices. I'm not being facetious; I accept that they are capable of learning. Is this correct?

_ Regarding the original file: Does that refer to the file on YouTube's server?

_ Regarding the images: The spirits urged you to closely examine (your) bloodstains on a shirt. Doing so, you discovered there were images in them, mostly faces. So far you've found about 60 images in these bloodstains. Is this correct?

The spirits also urged you to have the blood tested, which you did and are currently awaiting the results of the tests. Is this correct?

The spirits are now producing images in tiny flicks of paint. These images are new and not part of the 60 original images. Is this correct?

Sorry for asking so many questions. I'm comfortable sharing my opinions here but they're meaningless if I have the facts all wrong. If I've made a hot mess of your comments, I apologize and look forward to being corrected. Thank you!

Scordatura

In June I sent Flaccon a silent recording that I'd made in January. It was generated using the built-in cyberlink app and built-in mic. The file altered considerably, and now I have voices coming through my PC all the time. Yes good description, a chain reaction occurs according to arrange of wires/equipment used.

They are not in the air, so an external mic blocks their attempts of getting through (tested it with a few people) They told her that they travel thru her fingers and into her PC, and then into into PC's.

She feels that they are not altering the files as such, just adding their words or differences to the files. They are not being recorded no, they speak on playback of a silent-generated recording (no mute)

Youtube. After altering my PC, they asked her to go on to youtube. At first she was hearing words that were familiar to her but she wasn't sure if it was coincidental. So we did that test, I listened in first, so flaccon knew there were no voices, then flaccon listened in. The files I heard for the second time, had altered. There were "extra" noises/voices added. Sometimes vague or sluggish, sometimes clear, but recognisable enough to know that the files had altered. Once a file alters, any copy of that file will alter accordingly.

Blood stains. She's only just started with paints and I don't know enough about this yet. The spirits urged her to take the stains to a bishop (they requested a bishop using his full name) She had no idea what was in the stains until April. When the bishop finally refused to help her, without investigation (despite the letter from the GP, who the bishop requested she go see) the spirits told flaccon to examine the stains herself, mentioning faces. When she found a further 2, they told her to look for more. I'm aware she has at least 60 images yes.

These spirits really do keep stepping up a gear, and every time they do, she reports (with evidence) the lot to her Gp. She has told her Gp far more bazarre than she has mentioned here, and he seriously cant believe the bishops reaction.

One more mention on Pc's, via the internet (email) she believes has a 60 to 70% success rate (according to equipment) but calibrating by actual touch, remains to be seen. I know she purchased a new PC ready for the contest, but it was voice-affected. She tried another and that too was voice-affected. Also, once the spirits entered into my PC, it has taken several months to get them as clear as they are on the file I sent to Jack. The muffled voice heard, is quite loud depending on speakers used. I know this because I hear it muffly but I made out what it said. On flaccons PC the voice is a lot louder and clearer.

Sorry for the delay in replying, I hope it has made things a bit clearer.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Either this GP needs to be struck off the register ASAP or, and I think this is far more likely, flaccon is hearing what she wants to hear, not what he's really saying.

I'm thinking the latter, given her record on here, but it's also worth bearing in mind that being a professional of any kind doesn't make you immune to nonsense. It's possible that he believes flaccon 100%. That doesn't make any of it more credible. In fact, given the fact that the first letter said that he's no expert on the supernatural, I'd say that that makes most people on this board better qualified to judge this case, given that we do look at these kinds of things all the time, and some even make a living doing so. There are experts on the supernatural here, and even those of us who aren't experts have more experience and knowledge than it seems that this doctor has.

Of course, flaccon is ignoring what the more qualified people are saying and holding on to her GP for 2 reasons - firstly, that way she can reinforce what she wants to believe (regardless of whether that's what he's actually saying), and secondly she seems to have a great deal of respect for authority figures and gives his opinion more weight simply because he's a doctor.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Thanks Alderbank. I just uploaded scrappy's file.

https://app.box.com/alderbank

I took the slight liberty of renaming it "scrappy's file renamed.wmv" so you can all have fun trying to decide what the voice says.

I figured if you have a noisy recording of an indistinct voice which sounds like;

"shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh mum mam mamumum mam shhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

And you think it says;

"...................... the cat sat on the mat ..............................."

It rather spoils the fun if you post it up as a file called "The cat sat on the mat.wmv"

Can you link to the account, please? It's a while in this thread since there was last a link and I don't have it bookmarked.

In any case, if it's usual for files to be named in that way, it can explain how different people hear the same things without flaccon actually saying to them what they should hear.

 

[scrappy]

If your computer's recordings are louder now than before then its audio settings have changed. It's not mysterious. There's nothing out of the ordinary on that recording, just noise and someone speaking off-mic.

The "Someone" is her father. I record a silent room, I expect to hear what I heard in Jan, a silent recording.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

She has told her Gp far more bazarre than she has mentioned here, and he seriously cant believe the bishops reaction.

This is your interpretation of flaccon's interpretation of her GP's interpretation of flaccon's interpretation of some bishop's behaviour.

I'm less than confident we can reliably conclude anything from it.

 

[scrappy]

Can you link to the account, please? It's a while in this thread since there was last a link and I don't have it bookmarked.

In any case, if it's usual for files to be named in that way, it can explain how different people hear the same things without flaccon actually saying to them what they should hear.

She hears a reply to the conversation that was going on between Rev B and herself. She also knows what her fathers voice sounds like.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Can you link to the account, please? It's a while in this thread since there was last a link and I don't have it bookmarked.

In any case, if it's usual for files to be named in that way, it can explain how different people hear the same things without flaccon actually saying to them what they should hear.

I went back and added the link:

https://app.box.com/alderbank

Yes, I agree entirely, if people have been invited to interpret the recordings with flaccon's interpretation as the file name then it's hardly surprising if people tend to agree with such obvious prompting.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Thanks Alderbank. I just uploaded scrappy's file.

https://app.box.com/alderbank

I took the slight liberty of renaming it "scrappy's file renamed.wmv" so you can all have fun trying to decide what the voice says.

[/I]

At the beginning of the recording I hear

a man's voice saying, slowly and playfully as if addressing a small child or pet, "You little rat-bag".

This may say more about me than it does about the experiment, but at least it's a complete sentence.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

She hears a reply to the conversation that was going on between Rev B and herself. She also knows what her fathers voice sounds like.

She also knows what her own voice sounds like, and claims two women - one with a Birmingham accent and one with a Northern accent - are her own voice.

She is not a reliable witness. You need to think about what would constitute reliable evidence. Which takes us back to were this discussion was 6 months ago.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

At the beginning of the recording I hear

a man's voice saying, slowly and playfully as if addressing a small child or pet, "You little rat-bag"

.

Wow. That is so utterly different from what I hear, having been prompted by scrappy's original filename.

 

[scrappy]

She also knows what her own voice sounds like, and claims two women - one with a Birmingham accent and one with a Northern accent - are her own voice.

She is not a reliable witness. You need to think about what would constitute reliable evidence. Which takes us back to were this discussion was 6 months ago.

This further complicates the issue Jack? she hasn't said she has heard her name twice in brummie and northern at all. She said her voice is present on the grimbsy clip. Scouse voice too.