Looking for Skeptics - Continuation (Cassidy's EVP/diamond damage claim)

[Cassidy]

You're missing (or avoiding) the entire point here, Cassidy. Nobody needs to explain "why" the noises stopped; you need to demonstrate objectively that they do. Hence the MD hash and SB's wave-forms. It's irrelevant to speculate on "why" before you've even shown "what."

I showed "what" and questioned "why" and the only "why" I received back as to why the noises disappeared, was "It just must have been like that"

I find it strange considering it was that particular file that lead me to realise that if I too record a "constant" noise, it also disappears.

It can't just be hand-waved away because it can't be explained. Surely that's what supernatural phenomena is about.

 

[Mojo]

...the spirits do not natter away, other than for beneficial purposes.

How did they explain "the great mystery of life"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Fantasies or mistakes? (Please stick to just the one speculation) If you do have an alternative reason as to why "natural" rainfall & fan noises stopped dead (twice) during playback, I'd like to hear it?

You have yet to demonstrate the effect you are claiming.

No alternative explanation would be fruitful, when all you have are your assertions.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm not afraid of your insulting nature, and I'll not stoop to your belligerent level.

If you believe that you can prove that you are correct with your "assumption" I'd prefer you approach me in a mature manner, and without the repartition.

I've already heard your (et 'al) medical assumptions, and I have already stated that I am being constantly supported by a GP.

It's just a challenge. Everyone who believes they have a supernatural ability will go for the challenge. If they fail, they fail. If I fail I fail, and if I succeed, charity benefits greatly.

What would it take to cause you to admit that you had failed?

 

[Mojo]

I find it strange considering it was that particular file that lead me to realise that if I too record a "constant" noise, it also disappears.

A "constant noise", such as the 70Hz hum you mentioned earlier, is quite easy to get rid of using a band-stop or notch filter.

 

[Daylightstar]

... Repeatedly saying that there are possible explanations while not stating what they are isn't particularly helpful. ...

I have not been saying that, nor did I do so repeatedly. It's how you choose to interpret my words.
What I have been saying is that your protocol lacks controls. Some suggestions I made are verifying the signal consistency of the recording hardware beforehand and producing simultaneous recording with different recording hardware.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So what you are stating is, the supernatural wouldn't be able to cause that sort of phenomena with MD hash tags.

Not quite. Reality is that if the hashtags are unchanged, the file is unchanged.

No need to speculate about what "the supernatural" can and cannot do, until you demonstrate the bare existence of that that it pleases you to call "the supernatural".

I will have to beg to differ this, considering the rainfall & fan noises disappeared simultaneously (twice) during playback, of a file that was described by a person who knew how important his description would be, to the test in question. "Rainfall & fan noise" running "constantly" through the entire recording (As rain noise would do)

Yes it is going to record a "constant" noise, being that it was rainfall. So why did the both noises disappear from the recording during playback?

What evidence do you offer, that the noises did as you describe?

If you have no plausible answer to this, then you shouldn't be so convinced that the supernatural cannot by-pass MD hash tags.

A "plausible answer" would depend upon your evidence that the effect you claim has, in fact, happened. An unchanged "MD hash" is evidence that it has not, in fact, happened.

 

[Pixel42]

Our own brains will also filter out a constant noise after a while.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Squeegee: don't forget to account for the real bad compressors they use with the internal mics on computers. They can cause all kinds of bizarre artifacts.

I don't know a great deal about that, as I don't have a computer with an internal mic myself. I can't find anything specifically about the compressors that may be hard-wired in to one, although it does make sense that they would.

I don't think it should cause too much of a problem, assuming Cassidy does her homework and tests, tests, tests what she's trying to do (and I will happily walk her through it and let her know when she's getting what look like reasonable results - i.e. recording at a reasonable volume, and with the tick a reasonable amount louder than the tone). A compressor may make the ticks quieter, or get quieter over time (depending on the settings) but unless everything is mega-loud to start with, I can't see it actually reducing the amplitude of the ticks to the point where they can't be discerned clearly on the waveform, even when the tone is also present.

But, as I say, that's the kind of thing that we can only really get to grips with once recordings start to be made. At the moment everything's too theoretical to make anything too concrete. I don't predict a hard-wired compressor causing any problems to the test I've proposed, but you can never know for sure unless you're actually recording stuff and seeing what's happening.

Oh hang on, I think I might have misunderstood what you're saying. Are you offering the compressor as a potential cause of the drop in volume of what Cassidy describes as the "hum"? So the hum is ongoing, then she taps the mic or somewhere near that's quite loud in comparison to the hum. The loudness of the tapping causes the compressor to kick in and reduce the volume of everything, and Cassidy is tapping at a fast enough rate relative to the release on the compressor that the volume never increases again. Is that what you're proposing?

That's plausible, although it wouldn't explain the vocals disappearing on "Lovely Day". It would certainly be eliminated by the initial testing I'm proposing Cassidy does, though. I didn't say it explicitly when I was typing out the proposal above, but you can see that I've done it in the screenshots I posted - I'd suggest having the metronome at 60BPM, or 1 tick per second. That's close together enough to be considered regular, but I'd be very surprised if it were not far apart enough for any hard-wired compressor to release between each tick.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I showed "what" and questioned "why" and the only "why" I received back as to why the noises disappeared, was "It just must have been like that"

Where, and when, did you "show" evidence of what you claim happened?

I find it strange considering it was that particular file that lead me to realise that if I too record a "constant" noise, it also disappears.

I find it "strange" that there is no evidence of this.

It can't just be hand-waved away because it can't be explained. Surely that's what supernatural phenomena is about.

It doesn't NEED to be "hand-waved away" until it has been demonstrated to, in fact, exist.

You are asking people to explain an inaudible pig in a non-existent poke.

 

[Mojo]

It can't just be hand-waved away because it can't be explained.

It doesn't need to be hand-waved away because it hasn't been observed reliably.

Surely that's what supernatural phenomena is about.

Pretty much, yes.

But don't call me Shirley.

 

[Daylightstar]

Cassidy, will you still attach that zip file containing your clearest example file with the journalist to a post?
Thanks.

 

[jond]

I don't know a great deal about that, as I don't have a computer with an internal mic myself. I can't find anything specifically about the compressors that may be hard-wired in to one, although it does make sense that they would.

I don't think it should cause too much of a problem, assuming Cassidy does her homework and tests, tests, tests what she's trying to do (and I will happily walk her through it and let her know when she's getting what look like reasonable results - i.e. recording at a reasonable volume, and with the tick a reasonable amount louder than the tone). A compressor may make the ticks quieter, or get quieter over time (depending on the settings) but unless everything is mega-loud to start with, I can't see it actually reducing the amplitude of the ticks to the point where they can't be discerned clearly on the waveform, even when the tone is also present.

But, as I say, that's the kind of thing that we can only really get to grips with once recordings start to be made. At the moment everything's too theoretical to make anything too concrete. I don't predict a hard-wired compressor causing any problems to the test I've proposed, but you can never know for sure unless you're actually recording stuff and seeing what's happening.

Oh hang on, I think I might have misunderstood what you're saying. Are you offering the compressor as a potential cause of the drop in volume of what Cassidy describes as the "hum"? So the hum is ongoing, then she taps the mic or somewhere near that's quite loud in comparison to the hum. The loudness of the tapping causes the compressor to kick in and reduce the volume of everything, and Cassidy is tapping at a fast enough rate relative to the release on the compressor that the volume never increases again. Is that what you're proposing?

That's plausible, although it wouldn't explain the vocals disappearing on "Lovely Day". It would certainly be eliminated by the initial testing I'm proposing Cassidy does, though. I didn't say it explicitly when I was typing out the proposal above, but you can see that I've done it in the screenshots I posted - I'd suggest having the metronome at 60BPM, or 1 tick per second. That's close together enough to be considered regular, but I'd be very surprised if it were not far apart enough for any hard-wired compressor to release between each tick.

I suspect that they do a bit of knocking down as well as adding gain, kind of randomly shifting based on levels. I am certain that Cassidy is not recording in a silent environment, so the gain is going to be adjusting for whatever odd noises are happening, so all sorts of weird artifacts are going to happen. I don't know that it would do something like the vox on "lovely day" but I also don't think that only the vox were altered. (Haven't heard her recording in question) Obviously in a test you'd need it to be a properly quiet environment, but it seems to me that last go-round when actual silent recordings were used, nothing happened and she insisted that there had to be background noises because that's where the spirits are, or something.

 

[Daylightstar]

Your protocol looks sound to me, Squeegee.

For what purpose, a preliminary demonstration or the full blown MDC test?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What I have been saying is that your protocol lacks controls.

What you've said is that such a result would not be "outside the measure of science", yet you also admit that you don't know what within "the measure of science" could produce such a result.

Some suggestions I made are verifying the signal consistency of the recording hardware beforehand and producing simultaneous recording with different recording hardware.

We're talking about a computer that is supposedly affected by spirits. Any sound recorded on this hardware is supposed to behave in this way. You speak as if you'd reject the test if recordings made before the start of the test were not normal.

As for a simultaneous recording, given that Cassidy has said that her computer can, without touching them, infect others with the spirits, then a separate recording which did not produce the same effect would be evidence towards her claim as it would demonstrate that it was an effect unique to her computer, and a separate recording which did produce the same effect would also be evidence towards her claim as it would demonstrate that the effect had been transferred to the other computer (or dedicated recording device).

But, sure, why not be more specific? Outline exactly what controls you think there should be, what exactly you think they are controlling for, and what conditions these controls would have to meet in order to support or counter the claim. I would genuinely like to hear how you're thinking these controls would help.

The only suggestion I've heard thus far for how such an effect might be possible through mundane means is the suggestion that it's an artefact of compression from jond (and I'm not 100% sure that that's actually what s/he meant by his/her post) and, as you can see, I had already controlled for that, despite not stating that explicitly. It's all very well saying that there must be controls, but for that to be useful you have to say what you're actually controlling for and how the controls will help.

 

[Daylightstar]

What you've said is that such a result would not be "outside the measure of science", yet you also admit that you don't know what within "the measure of science" could produce such a result.
...

No, that's not what I said. What I did say was:

... a 'positive result' in your scenario would not be self evident of something outside the measure of science. ...

See?

...
We're talking about a computer that is supposedly affected by spirits. ...
...

Now suddenly spirits matter?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I suspect that they do a bit of knocking down as well as adding gain, kind of randomly shifting based on levels.

Oh, I'm sure that's true. But if it were set up as I've said, with the tone generator and metronome, then they should be loud enough to make most background noises irrelevant, barring something like construction work next door or things close to the mic itself.

I don't know that it would do something like the vox on "lovely day" but I also don't think that only the vox were altered.

The lead vocals not being present while the backing vocals remain sounds like polarity reversal. A compressor wouldn't do that. But, if it's an actual mono signal, then it would be impossible to remove the vocals through polarity reversal, and I can't think of any way for it to happen spontaneously and consistently in the middle of a note and not thereafter.

Obviously in a test you'd need it to be a properly quiet environment, but it seems to me that last go-round when actual silent recordings were used, nothing happened and she insisted that there had to be background noises because that's where the spirits are, or something.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this. I also don't think that Cassidy is necessarily reporting what she's heard completely accurately, either. But she is determined to take on the MDC and, as such, I don't see any reason not to help her work out a specific claim that can be objectively tested, and to work out a protocol that could be used to test that claim.

Things like it potentially not working in a quiet environment are why I've emphasised to her that she must test everything beforehand in the environment in which the actual test is going to take place.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, that's not what I said. What I did say was:

See?

Well, then, can you please clarify exactly what you mean by "self evident of something outside the measure of science"?

Now suddenly spirits matter?

Spirits, Satan, my auntie Maggie's bloomers, no it doesn't matter how the effect is achieved. What does matter is that we're talking about an effect that is supposed to happen on one particular computer.

Let's say my claim is that I have a magic spatula. This spatula will turn white paper pink when I tap the paper with the spatula. You're suggesting that before the test proper starts I should tap some white paper with the spatula and if the paper turns pink then that invalidates the test.

Another property of the spatula is that it imbues any nearby spatulas with its chromatic powers. You are also suggesting that during the test someone else uses a second spatula to tap paper. It's unclear which result you think will invalidate the test, but either the second piece of paper turning pink or the second piece of paper not turning pink could be deemed to be a validation of the powers of the original spatula. This makes this test valueless.

Look, I really, genuinely want help with this protocol. If there are actual flaws in it, then I want them eliminated. I was not being combative above when I asked you to be specific about what exactly you're proposing. You could help me, and I would very much appreciate it if you did. At the moment, though, you're just kind of going "stuff could happen that would invalidate the test", "what kind of stuff?", "y'know, stuff", which isn't particularly helpful.

So, please, rather than trying to score a cheap "gotcha" by highlighting the word "spirits" and ignoring the rest of the four paragraphs that give the context to that use of the word, actually say what controls you think there should be, what they would be controlling for, and how you think they should be implemented. You think my proposed protocol is broken. Fine. Please help me to fix it, then.

 

[Cassidy]

1. CLAIM:


====================
2. REQUIRED EQUIPMENT :
a) 1 PC
b) 1 Metronome
c) 1 Tone Generator
d) Sound-proof room
=====================
3. Method
a) Using a Samsung PC Laptop, and using the built-in microphone and "Sound Recorder" software, I shall make a recording of both the instruments playing simultaneously.

b) On playback (using external speakers - medium volume) both noises from the instruments should be heard at the beginning of the recording. Within 4/5 seconds into the recording, the noise from the tone generator will (if successful) completely disappear from the recording, leaving just the ticking of the metronome behind.
======================

Maybe I should add that I might need a few attempts at it?

 

[Mojo]

We're talking about a computer that is supposedly affected by spirits.

Now suddenly spirits matter?

Pour a couple of whiskies into your computer, and you'll most likely see an effect.