I choked on M's article in the magazine, it does require correction and less exaggeration.
The meeting was 1.30 minutes, so trying to glean this sort of information in this short time (taking no notes) and then to write it out at a later date, I can understand would contain much incorrect information. The content in the article could have been proofed before going viral.
==================================================
Magazine article reads.. "Around October of last year, ASKE was contacted by a person, whom I shall refer to as ‘C’ (for claimant), who wished to submit a claim for testing by ASKE. The claim concerned messages from the spirits of deceased people...
==============
If I may add to the above.. "The claim concerned messages from spirits of deceased people .."and of living people"" I may not be able to prove these voices are from the deceased, but the living voices I can, and it was worth a mention (if only for future reference)
===================================================
Magazine article reads .. "At our meeting, C made a number of claims about the spirits, amongst whom she identified deceased members of her family. Firstly she said that the spirits had initially caused her blood to be discharged from some existing scars and in the resulting stains on her clothing were the faces of the deceased persons and other images. Since then, C had adopted the method of deliberately creating these stains by pricking herself... "
===============
Incorrect and yes extremely disturbing. Although this is indeed the method I will adopt in the future. I explained to M that the stains had accumulated over a period of time, but two were from scars that had wept independently (Oct 2012 and Dec 2013) I explained that the stains were from accidental cuts whilst gardening through the summer. I explained that I had only recently purchased finger lancets (Dec 2013) to stop the spirits from causing my blood to independently flow from me. I did not show M "dozens" of pieces of blood stained material. I did not show any blood stained material. I showed M a sheet of paper that contained a print-out of the 8 small stains. I do not have "hundreds of stains" I have 8. I do not have "thousands of smaller samples" I have 75. I showed M a sheet of paper containing 8 small stains that contained over 70 smaller images within. 5 facial images have been clearly identified as my family members, by other family members. When "Pareidolia" was constantly suggested, the spirits started producing more family images.
=============
Magazine article reads.. "C also played a number of AV recordings that people had uploaded on YouTube. The sources of these videos were unknown to C but she explained that they contained hidden messages directed to her from the spirits..."
=============
Correction; There are messages directed to a number of others including myself. Friends/family, including names in full (surnames)
=================================================
Magazine article reads.. " ..C thoughtfully warned us prior to our visit that my wife should consider not wearing any diamonds as these could suffer by being present at our meeting. My wife took the risk of wearing her diamond ring but at the time of writing it does not seem to the unaided eye that any changes have occurred.)
===========
During our meet, I asked Michael had Valerie's diamond flaws been inspected under magnification. The reply was "We didn't think to do that" I showed M that my diamonds contained internal smashes, including a surface crack to one diamond that can be felt with the fingernail. It indicates nothing more crap diamonds, but to me is something that I believe the spirits can replicate under proper testing. The description of my diamonds are very accurate, and can be seen so by untrained eyes under magnification. I have offered to take the diamonds and have them described by a jeweller to confirm my accurate description. For the record, the idea to degrade a diamond at the contest was at the spirits request.
==================================================
Also, I did not suggest that I was seeking expert opinion regarding whether the test recording was "muted" Mr Roberts suspected it was muted so I requested a replacement recording that contained M's voice. This eliminates any unnecessary doubt before proceeding the download.
===========
Magazine article reads.. "... I informed C that the results of this preliminary test were negative. It then transpired from C that she had only been able to download the second recording (she explained that the first one ‘displayed a red warning’). Consequently only this recording was part of this preliminary test.
============
I did not attempt to download the initial recording due to the speculation that it may have been on mute. I asked M for a replacement recording with his voice present as it is being suggested "mute" has been used. M confirmed that no mute was used, and obliged my second request. I discovered then that I could not download the initial recording after all, I actually received it days later via post from Mr Roberts.
====================================================
I remain confused regarding both recordings, the original and the replacement recording. The initial description of the replacement recording I received was.. "A 25-second recording of ‘silence’ with my voice at the beginning and end. I can hear some very faint clunks before and after both occasions when I speak. I detect no increase in the background noise emitted through my speakers prior to playback and when the recording ends"
I reported to M that his description is not matching what I was hearing. I described an initial hiss, ending with an abrupt clunk (knock) followed by two more faint knocks just before the voice at the beginning. Then there are small interferences at 09, 13 to 15 and 17 seconds. There is a faint knock after the voice at the end of the recording. The differences being the short hiss sound, and the interferences between 09 and 17 seconds. Being only slight differences, I assumed my Bose speakers where picking up those extra noises where M's speakers could not, meaning the recording did not alter. However, these noises are the familiar noises heard when the spirits have difficulty transferring. I asked M if he was using the PC that he'd brought to my home. I had explained to M during our meet, that his PC is likely already affected. M said if there was any detection of this, another PC can be used. I have asked M on several occasions if he can hear the noises between 09 and 17 seconds, and I continue to fail to understand the replies. M believed that if he was to make copies and store them on to memory stick, he could later "compare" his original recording against the stored copies, for any differences. I had stated that if the spirits manage to transfer, then the recording should alter, also any copies of that recording will alter in the same manner as the original. Meaning there will be no differences detected between the original recording and any copies made. M's last words on the subject were "I can hear what you hear but there are no difference between the original and the copies stored to memory stick"
The other thing I found strange was that the original recording was completely silent, indicating that M's PC could produce a "silent" recording. Whilst the replacement recording (which I opened up first) produced as many as eight knocks/clunks/interferences and a hiss sound. M replied that when he makes a recording these noises "just appear" naturally. Maybe only now they do, as M did not familiarise himself with his PC's background noises beforehand.
Like M points out, there are many flaws and misunderstandings to such a test.
It is agreed that we will use a PC that has not entered into my home. We are now using "V's" PC. M pointed out the many flaws, technical hitches and other problems that this test certainly carries, and I do agree. I suggested an easier way of proving paranormal activity which contains no flaws, no technical hitches and no room for misunderstandings. I did not receive any interest towards this suggestion but did receive the recording called "Vsample" and it's description. I proceeded to download it but again there were technical hitches. This time I recorded myself making several attempts to download "Vsample" to no avail. I attached this recording and sent it to M, endorsing his point made regarding "technical difficulties" and again suggested the easier option. Again no interest paid to this suggestion, but I did receive a reason for the technical hitch and M has corrected this.
Meanwhile, scrappy has just returned from vacation and continues to have connectivity issues with his PC and mobile phone.
The easier option what I have suggested is this... If I was to record myself holding a note (tune) using either an instrument or vocals, for 15 seconds. On playback one would expect to hear 15 seconds of that note/tune. Should the note/tune fade out and disappear within seconds, it could be considered a technical hitch but, if I was to hold the note and create a drum noise at the same time, and the note fades out and disappears whilst the tapping noise remains throughout, then this will certainly rule out any "technical hitches"
Moreso (if my hunch is correct) then every PC that has been spiritually affected, should be able to produce the same effects as my PC produces. Meaning it is possible that M's PC and V's PC may be able to produce the same effect as my PC when holding a note and drumming. The note should fade out and disappear leaving behind just the drum sound.
I spoke with scrappy last night and asked him to test his PC using the above method, and it indeed produced the same effect as my PC. This result could be due to him using my spare PC since the P.I team requested his PC for investigation (it has since packed up) I will need to contact a few others with affected PC's and ask them to test out the above method (Any offers JS?
I'll concentrate on this area for a short while, where I can succeed every time and where M can find no scientific logic. If there is logic, that doesn't sound like square pegs forced into round holes, then I will call it a day on the challenge, thanking M and V for all their help and move on with the spirits mission.
PS. M is aware of the corrections required. I choked on M's article in the magaizine, it requires correction and less eggageration.
The meeting was 1.30 minutes, so trying to glean this sort of information in this short time (taking no notes) and then to write it out at a later date, I can understand would contain much incorrect information. The eggageration however beggars belief. The content in the article should have been proofed before going viral.
==================================================
Magazine article reads.. "Around October of last year, ASKE was contacted by a person, whom I shall refer to as ‘C’ (for claimant), who wished to submit a claim for testing by ASKE. The claim concerned messages from the spirits of deceased people...
==============
If I may add to the above.. "The claim concerned messages from spirits of deceased people .."and of living people"" I may not be able to prove these voices are from the deceased, but the living voices I can, and it was worth a mention (if only for future reference)
===================================================
Magazine article reads .. "At our meeting, C made a number of claims about the spirits, amongst whom she identified deceased members of her family. Firstly she said that the spirits had initially caused her blood to be discharged from some existing scars and in the resulting stains on her clothing were the faces of the deceased persons and other images. Since then, C had adopted the method of deliberately creating these stains by pricking herself... "
===============
Incorrect and yes extremely disturbing. Although this is indeed the method I will adopt in the future. I explained to M that the stains had accumulated over a period of time, but two were from scars that had wept independently (Oct 2012 and Dec 2013) I explained that the stains were from accidental cuts whilst gardening through the summer. I explained that I had only recently purchased finger lancets (Dec 2013) to stop the spirits from causing my blood to independently flow from me. I did not show M "dozens" of pieces of blood stained material. I did not show any blood stained material. I showed M a sheet of paper that contained a print-out of the 8 small stains. I do not have "hundreds of stains" I have 8. I do not have "thousands of smaller samples" I have 75. I showed M a sheet of paper containing 8 small stains that contained over 70 smaller images within. 5 facial images have been clearly identified as my family members, by other family members. When "Pareidolia" was constantly suggested, the spirits started producing more family images.
=============
Magazine article reads.. "C also played a number of AV recordings that people had uploaded on YouTube. The sources of these videos were unknown to C but she explained that they contained hidden messages directed to her from the spirits..."
=============
Correction; There are messages directed to a number of others including myself. Friends/family, including names in full (surnames)
=================================================
Magazine article reads.. " ..C thoughtfully warned us prior to our visit that my wife should consider not wearing any diamonds as these could suffer by being present at our meeting. My wife took the risk of wearing her diamond ring but at the time of writing it does not seem to the unaided eye that any changes have occurred.)
===========
During our meet, I asked Michael had Valerie's diamond flaws been inspected under magnification. The reply was "We didn't think to do that" I showed M that my diamonds contained internal smashes, including a surface crack to one diamond that can be felt with the fingernail. It indicates nothing more crap diamonds, but to me is something that I believe the spirits can replicate under proper testing. The description of my diamonds are very accurate, and can be seen so by untrained eyes under magnification. I have offered to take the diamonds and have them described by a jeweller to confirm my accurate description. For the record, the idea to degrade a diamond at the contest was at the spirits request.
==================================================
Also, I did not suggest that I was seeking expert opinion regarding whether the test recording was "muted" Mr Roberts suspected it was muted so I requested a replacement recording that contained M's voice. This eliminates any unnecessary doubt before proceeding the download.
===========
Magazine article reads.. "... I informed C that the results of this preliminary test were negative. It then transpired from C that she had only been able to download the second recording (she explained that the first one ‘displayed a red warning’). Consequently only this recording was part of this preliminary test.
============
I did not attempt to download the initial recording due to the speculation that it may have been on mute. I asked M for a replacement recording with his voice present as it is being suggested "mute" has been used. M confirmed that no mute was used, and obliged my second request. I discovered then that I could not download the initial recording after all, I actually received it days later via post from Mr Roberts.
====================================================
I remain confused regarding both recordings, the original and the replacement recording. The initial description of the replacement recording I received was.. "A 25-second recording of ‘silence’ with my voice at the beginning and end. I can hear some very faint clunks before and after both occasions when I speak. I detect no increase in the background noise emitted through my speakers prior to playback and when the recording ends"
I reported to M that his description is not matching what I was hearing. I described an initial hiss, ending with an abrupt clunk (knock) followed by two more faint knocks just before the voice at the beginning. Then there are small interferences at 09, 13 to 15 and 17 seconds. There is a faint knock after the voice at the end of the recording. The differences being the short hiss sound, and the interferences between 09 and 17 seconds. Being only slight differences, I assumed my Bose speakers where picking up those extra noises where M's speakers could not, meaning the recording did not alter. However, these noises are the familiar noises heard when the spirits have difficulty transferring. I asked M if he was using the PC that he'd brought to my home. I had explained to M during our meet, that his PC is likely already affected. M said if there was any detection of this, another PC can be used. I have asked M on several occasions if he can hear the noises between 09 and 17 seconds, and I continue to fail to understand the replies. M believed that if he was to make copies and store them on to memory stick, he could later "compare" his original recording against the stored copies, for any differences. I had stated that if the spirits manage to transfer, then the recording should alter, also any copies of that recording will alter in the same manner as the original. Meaning there will be no differences detected between the original recording and any copies made. M's last words on the subject were "I can hear what you hear but there are no difference between the original and the copies stored to memory stick"
The other thing I found strange was that the original recording was completely silent, indicating that M's PC could produce a "silent" recording. Whilst the replacement recording (which I opened up first) produced as many as eight knocks/clunks/interferences. M replied that when he makes these silent recordings, these noises "just appear" naturally. Maybe only now they do, as M did not familiarise himself with his PC's natural background noises beforehand. However, the original test recording was completely silent.
Like M points out, there are many flaws and misunderstandings to such a test.
It is agreed that we will use a PC that has not entered into my home. We are now using "V's" PC. M pointed out the many flaws, technical hitches and other problems that this test certainly carries, and I do agree. I suggested an easier way of proving paranormal activity which contains no flaws, no technical hitches and no room for misunderstandings. I did not receive any interest towards this suggestion but did receive the recording called "Vsample" and it's description. I proceeded to download it but again there were technical hitches. This time I recorded myself making several attempts to download "Vsample" to no avail. I attached this recording and sent it to M, endorsing his point made regarding "technical difficulties" and again suggested the easier option. Again no interest paid to this suggestion, but I did receive a reason for the technical hitch and M has corrected this.
Meanwhile, scrappy has just returned from vacation and continues to have connectivity issues with his PC and mobile phone.
The easier option what I have suggested is this... If I was to record myself holding a note (tune) using either an instrument or vocals, for 15 seconds. On playback one would expect to hear 15 seconds of that note/tune. Should the note/tune fade out and disappear within seconds, it could be considered a technical hitch but, if I was to hold the note and create a drum noise at the same time, and the note fades out and disappears whilst the tapping noise remains throughout, then this will certainly rule out any "technical hitches"
More-so (if my hunch is correct) then every PC that has been spiritually affected, should be able to produce the same effects as my PC produces. Meaning it is possible that M's PC and V's PC may be able to produce the same effect as my PC when holding a note and drumming. The note should fade out and disappear leaving behind just the drum sound.
I spoke with scrappy last night and asked him to test his PC using the above method, and it indeed produced the same effect as my PC. This result could be due to him using my spare PC since the P.I team requested his PC for investigation (it has since packed up) I will need to contact a few others with affected PC's and ask them to test out the above method (Any offers JS?
I'll concentrate on this area for a short while, where I can succeed every time and where M can find no scientific logic. If there is logic, that doesn't sound like square pegs being forced into round holes, then I will call it a day on the challenge, thanking M and V for all their help and move on to Randi
PS. M is aware of the corrections required, and I have recently opened up "Vsample" and reported my findings.
If the voices weren't actually being recorded then why would she have bothered to collect them as “evidence” in the first place? Maybe the 20-plus years of fixation on the paranormal has eroded flaccon's reasoning abilities. 
It doesn't take much to send the brain spinning into the woo. The part I don't get is why the “brakes” don't work for some people.
