Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
scrappy said:
I sent her a silent file in June, and it altered.
Click to expand...
Which "it" do you mean, and when did "it" alter?

Do you mean you emailed her a file and the file she received was not what you sent?

Or do you mean you emailed her a file and when she listened to it, it changed?

Or do you mean when she listened to her copy, the original copy on your own computer changed?
[/QUOTE]
 
Spektator said:
I can't hear any human voice at all, just some blips and blups. Nearest equivalent I can think of: woo woopa wah wah.
Click to expand...

Pretty much same here.

All I hear with my ears is a vaguely conversational rhythm and on top of that is my brain's cogs and wheels frantically churning in search of meaning.
 
Scrappy's problem is that he expects us to be impressed by a voice on a recording, but Edison stole his thunder long ago. There is nothing odd about the recording itself; it appears to be completely ordinary and uninteresting. The odd thing is the way in which (scrappy claims) it was made.

So scrappy and flaccon need to demonstrate their supernatural method of producing recordings, not the end result, which is just more recordings which could easily be produced in mundane ways.
 
Scrappy, if flaccon gathered a group of people and played these recordings - without telling the audience what to hear, when they'd hear it or what titles she'd given the files - what would happen is exactly what's happened on this thread. Different people would hear different words or no words at all.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Scrappy's problem is that he expects us to be impressed by a voice on a recording, but Edison stole his thunder long ago. There is nothing odd about the recording itself; it appears to be completely ordinary and uninteresting. The odd thing is the way in which (scrappy claims) it was made.

So scrappy and flaccon need to demonstrate their supernatural method of producing recordings, not the end result, which is just more recordings which could easily be produced in mundane ways.
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to think that i'm out to impress? what have I got to gain other than a pile of ridicule?

The first file I sent to flaccon via email, altered on her PC. The original file on my PC altered accordingly. There's nothing odd about clicking "record"
 
Alice Shortcake said:
Scrappy, if flaccon gathered a group of people and played these recordings - without telling the audience what to hear, when they'd hear it or what titles she'd given the files - what would happen is exactly what's happened on this thread. Different people would hear different words or no words at all.
Click to expand...

A gathering wouldn't need to work out what the "older" recordings say. They will be working out what any "new" recordings say. Also, the voices can be transferred into other PC's for such a gathering to go home and continue listening to what is being said. I cant say how important some messages are, but if it wasn't important I wouldn't be wasting my time
 
scrappy said:
Why do you continue to think that i'm out to impress? what have I got to gain other than a pile of ridicule?





The first file I sent to flaccon via email, altered on her PC. The original file on my PC altered accordingly. There's nothing odd about clicking "record"
Click to expand...



Again you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting you want us to be impressed by you. I think you want us to be sufficiently impressed by the recordings that we become convinced they are the work of spirits. Is that wrong? Do you not want to convince us of this?



Once more - mundane recordings are not, by their mere existence, evidence of their being created in a supernatural way. The existence of recordings is not what you need to prove.



If I showed you a tower of children's building blocks and told you I threw the blocks in the air and they just landed that way, would you believe me?



What if i showed you another tower, and another? When would you believe me?
 
scrappy said:
A gathering wouldn't need to work out what the "older" recordings say. They will be working out what any "new" recordings say. Also, the voices can be transferred into other PC's for such a gathering to go home and continue listening to what is being said.
Click to expand...

You do understand, don't you, that none of this is an objective test, and that it will not be accepted by any sceptic's group as a test protocol?

And please can you say what you make of the picture of Jesus I linked to earlier in the thread.
 
Daylightstar said:
If 'they' do not utilize a microphone but enter the circuitry of the computer directly, you should be able to record 'them' with the sound card of the computer.

In Windows the sound card may initially be hidden from view and disabled, right click on the list of audio recording devices and select Show Disabled Devices.
Enable the sound card and if possible you could set it as the default device or choose the sound card as the device of choice in a recording program.

Make a recording, it will be very silent except for any audio playing through the computer and system sounds (all of which of course you would prevent from happening) and supposedly any 'discarnate voices'.
Such an audio file is not absolutely silent though, once normalized, you will hear background noise but no interfering ambient noises.

You should try that.

An example of normalized sound card audio is attached.
Click to expand...

I downloaded your file example last night and found that the hissing noise is louder than the background noise I hear on my PC.
 
Alice Shortcake said:
I wish someone could say because this world-shattering revelation is a long time a-coming.
Click to expand...

Whats the point in relaying any important messages here? I'm sure once its established for what it is, you'll hear soon enough. And its not for flacon to relay anything so intense, it was up to the church to take this info and deal with it.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Again you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting you want us to be impressed by you. I think you want us to be sufficiently impressed by the recordings that we become convinced they are the work of spirits. Is that wrong? Do you not want to convince us of this?



Once more - mundane recordings are not, by their mere existence, evidence of their being created in a supernatural way. The existence of recordings is not what you need to prove.



If I showed you a tower of children's building blocks and told you I threw the blocks in the air and they just landed that way, would you believe me?



What if i showed you another tower, and another? When would you believe me?
Click to expand...

Its evident enough to me, to know there is more to learn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom