Interesting, but just to rectify, these forces don't use the PC or the drum and band to smash diamonds. I'd be using the drum to generate vibration, so I can communicate during the experiment. If pareidolia is the answer for the sentences that emit during the experiment, I'd be highly surprised, but the breaking diamonds has no other explanation other than paranormal, surely?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Looking for Skeptics - Continuation (Cassidy's EVP/diamond damage claim)
- Thread starter Cassidy
- Start date
Interesting, but just to rectify, these forces don't use the PC or the drum and band to smash diamonds. I'd be using the drum to generate vibration, so I can communicate during the experiment. If pareidolia is the answer for the sentences that emit during the experiment, I'd be highly surprised, but the breaking diamonds has no other explanation other than paranormal, surely?
Donn
Philosopher
You think you are speaking plainly, but you aren't. Do you know that we are not in your mind, or from your future? Do you know that we have no idea what you plan, or how you do your "tests"?
For example, what the heck has the drum to do with communication during the experiment?
Bottom line: you are too scattered. Simplify. Focus on the diamonds.
What does a broken diamond look like? What does an unbroken diamond look like? Is there anything in between that you could not say whether a diamond was broken or not?
How can you guarantee to us that you will not smash the diamonds yourself? Think of ways to keep the diamonds in plain view, so we can see that you are not cheating.
Etc.
Sadly I predict a riot. I've never needed to write up a protocol before, and I did explain it would require alterations. I fitted it all on one page so maybe I didn't include enough, not sure.
I was thinking of paying to have it written up by a professional, though I've not looked into it yet, cost etc.
I have sent a couple of polite reminders (Monthly) and I've not received word back.
There's no need to pay to have your protocol written up by a professional, Cassidy; if you post up your protocol there will be plenty of people who will re-write it for free in a format that will be acceptable to JREF. But unless you post your protocol, there is nothing for the experts to work with.
Here is what I suggested.
There are two PC's and a diamond ring on stand-by.
This equipment is to be delivered direct to a JREF rep, without my inspection.
The rep can check that the PC's recording quality is functioning correctly.
Also, to create a 30 second recording, replay it using external speakers (It should be silent, if not silent, indicate where noise is present) and place the recordings to the desktops.
(The above procedure should indicate that both PC's are functioning correctly)
The diamonds require inspection before the test begins (I think the JREF will wish to have them professionally inspected/evaluated/described)
I'll be using the drum and band for my own purposes during the test, and will explain how vibration produces a better communication.
I will use my own PC, and record two noises. On playback, one noise should disappear from the recording, leaving the other noise remaining. I will then attempt to transfer this activity into the "inspected" PC's. If successful, the PC's recording quality should be useless.
The diamonds are probably the easiest to fail or succeed with. Would it be as simple as a "before & after" inspection/evaluation/description?
I will be wearing the ring for as long as possible in plain view of those present, at all times. If I should need to leave the room, the ring will be taken off and handed to the JREF rep until my return.
ETA: The above is not how I wrote it out word for word, but it went something like that.
Last edited:
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,333
OK, it's a good start. My first question is how long will you need to wear the ring for the change to take effect? It sounds like the longer the better, but are we talking about minutes, hours, days? This will inform every other part of the protocol.
Thanks,
Ward
Thanks,
Ward
xjx388
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 11,392
This part is not entirely clear. If I'm reading it correctly, you are claiming that the "disappearance" (not a great word to use when talking about sound but I'll go with it) of the sound from the recording is due to a supernatural cause? If that's the case, then the whole bit with transferring activities to other PCs and then somehow breaking a diamond seems wholly unnecessary. If you can make a sound "disappear," from a recording without actually deleting it, that would seem to be good enough to win the million.Cassidy said:
Having said that, I am very curious as to the way you might have discovered such an ability. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, we are talking about a spirit "infesting" a PC and through some kind of vibration or other phenomenon, the spirit shatters a diamond. And you've apparently heard this spirit talk to you through similar vibrations. Why would a spirit do such a thing? And why through such a convoluted method? It could be this has been discussed before and I will go to the other thread to see if I can catch up.
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,333
Ultimately the process using the computers is not particularly important. If the diamond is examined and photographed before the test, and then nothing happens to the diamond that should cause any change, but then the diamond is re-examined and has changed at the end of the test, that's all that matters. She can do what she wants with computers and voice recorders or she can meditate or do whatever she wants. If the diamond changes, it changes. She and the JREF will have to agree on how the diamond will be examined and what will constitute a change.
I know nothing about diamonds, but I'm guessing there's a way to magnify and photograph them from the same angle and under the same conditions and then count the inclusions or impurities.
Ward
I know nothing about diamonds, but I'm guessing there's a way to magnify and photograph them from the same angle and under the same conditions and then count the inclusions or impurities.
Ward
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
Palpable nonsense. Everyone knows diamonds are forever!
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
It's not for sale. It's just the best answer for that kookery that you expect us to believe.
According to the pre-test, I wore the ring for several hours before noticing the black carbon greatly increase. It wasn't the effect I expected, I was concentrating on "fractures" but noticed how ugly the diamonds had turned. It was on day 3 that the ring showed internal fractures (two out of three diamonds only)
I suggested that once the experiment was ended, the ring can remain in possession of the JREF until fractures occur.
I discovered it whilst taking the ASKE challenge. I'd said to Michael, if there is only a minor alteration to his recording, (which there was) there will be "other" signs that the PC has been affected. I asked M to check to see if his PC was still "unaffected" before we continued the challenge, by recording a 10 second tune. This was the reason I was dismissed from the challenge, because "checking his PC before continuing" wasn't in the protocol.
I'd noticed way back that a member here described his recording as having a "constant noise" running through (rain & fan) When I played the recording through this PC, the constant noise trailed off and disappeared, leaving short blips in it's place.
On the day I realised that the above could be replicated, it was due to an aeroplane flying overhead. My green sound detector bar on the PC was indicating "noise" and then the indicator shot down to zero as the noise continued.
I tried recording a long hum. On playback the hum disappeared after 4 seconds leaving short blips behind. I tried recording a sound wave (70hz) it also faded out.
I tried recording a hum, and after 4 seconds introduced a tapping sound. The hum faded out but the tapping could still be clearly heard.
I tried recording (again 70hz) as a gentleman recited "The rain in Spain.." The hum faded out and the voice clearly remained.
Based on this, I recorded part of a song "A lovely Day" (Bill Withers) where he holds his note on the word "DAY" for 9 seconds. On playback, his note disappears after 4 seconds, leaving the rest of the music remaining.
I have no idea how it works, I just know it works. I was informed that where "they" are, they talk fast (very fast) and their words entangle with each other's. Vibration causes their speech to improve on volume. It slows down their speech and untangles one voice from the many.
The demonstration is full of unexplainable activity. I will be trying to demonstrate as much paranormal as I have discovered. Transferring spirit activity into other PC's, altering the internal of a diamond, cause noise to fade out, speaking in full sentence (using drum vibration) and so on. If only one of these abilities succeed during the preliminary test, I should stand a good chance to move onto the main test.
Last edited:
I'm thinking to have a written evaluation/description of the ring prior to the test. Then have it re-evaluated/described (post-test)
For sale or free it ought be optional. I don't think it's the best answer, I think it's the best "theory" or rather, the only theory (according to science)
I honestly don't expect to be believed, I expect to take a challenge and finally have it investigated. I am certain that Mr Randi will go over it with a fine tooth comb before handing the money over to charity.
Charity can be happy, I can be happy, a lot of psychic charlatans will cease work and be unhappy. Science will need to re-adjust to the truth, instead of creating yet another theory. It could be a happy ending all round (almost)
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
What I'll never understand is why someone would jump from "something I didn't understand happened when I was using my computer" to "my computer is infested with spirits". My computer behaves in ways I don't understand all the time, I just put it down to crap software. Likewise if I had a diamond ring which got damaged I'd curse my own carelessness and/or the crap manufacturer. I understood why the brain sometimes perceives patterns that aren't really there long before I found out the word for it was pareidolia, it would never have occurred to me to put that down to spirits or the paranormal either.
ETA: Incidentally Cassidy, Randi has retired. Whoever you deal with at JREF, it won't be him.
ETA: Incidentally Cassidy, Randi has retired. Whoever you deal with at JREF, it won't be him.
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
This is the wrong approach. Pick the one thing that you think you will be most able to demonstrate, reliably and quickly (you are very unlikely to get the JREF to agree to a test which involves you wearing a ring for 3 days), and without having to break protocol (ASKE were quite right to consider the test a failure if you broke the agreed-upon protocol - the protocol is agreed upon beforehand and must be stuck to. Any changes to the protocol, even minor ones that you think would be unimportant, must be mutually agreed before the test starts) and look to demonstrate that.
Pick just one claim, and attempt to demonstrate that. But remember - there must be no interpretation required in the results. Having people agree that they think they can hear "full sentences" will never be part of a protocol that the JREF will accept. Never.
I think your best bet is in being able to alter a recording of "A Lovely Day" by Bill Withers. You'd need a PC that can be determined to be clean - perhaps an impartial party could do a fresh install of Windows with all witnesses present - and then you could download a copy of the song and everybody could listen to it. Then you do whatever it is you do - ensuring that you don't connect the PC to one you believe to be affected by any physical means or via WiFi or the like, and perhaps even without physically touching the PC yourself, if that's something you can do (you are still unclear about exactly how this whole thing works) - and then play back the recording with everybody present. If the voice fades out on the long note after 4 seconds, then you've won yourself a million.
This seems very testable. The voice fading out while the rest of the music remains would be very noticeable (particularly as the backing vocals singing "lovely day, lovely day..." would continue, I presume, as they are short) and, while it would be possible to create a faked-up recording in preparation (I'm not saying that you would or could do that, but it is possible to achieve with the right know-how and equipment, which means the protocol must exclude that possibility), it should be relatively easy for a protocol to be devised which would ensure that this has not happened.
Forget everything else, and concentrate on making the voice fade out on that one song. That is very testable, would be clear and unambiguous, and is all you'd need to demonstrate in order to win the million.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
As the JREF has been sort of inactive most of this year might this be the dusting off of applications in preparation to this year's TAM challenge?
I just don't see them accepting any of the sound file, transfer of sound, "disappearing sound" stuff as testable. If they do, I'm dying to see Cassidy argue with them, "No, right there, you can hear it saying Beelzebub!"
The diamond might be testable, but allowing Cassidy to wear it (plain sight or not) through an hour or so of dinking with the computers? While I don't see a way to crack a diamond surreptitiously, I'm not a conjurer. There would be too many opportunities for the ring finger to be out of sight during the "distraction" (as that's how a performing magician will see it).
I just don't see them accepting any of the sound file, transfer of sound, "disappearing sound" stuff as testable. If they do, I'm dying to see Cassidy argue with them, "No, right there, you can hear it saying Beelzebub!"
The diamond might be testable, but allowing Cassidy to wear it (plain sight or not) through an hour or so of dinking with the computers? While I don't see a way to crack a diamond surreptitiously, I'm not a conjurer. There would be too many opportunities for the ring finger to be out of sight during the "distraction" (as that's how a performing magician will see it).
i don't think you participated in the last thread.
An MD hash of the recording will be different to the original if the recording/sound changes.
We went through this so many times for Cassidy.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Cassidy, I really think your protocol for testing the diamond will not be accepted. The reason is very simple: If anyone wears any rings for longer than a day, they get dirty due to sweat and dirt accumulation that everyone has. This dirt will also accumulate in scratches, making them look more prominent than normal. If you are a sweaty person or work with naturally dusty material like cloth or paper, the dirt accumulation happens faster. People who regularly work around photocopiers and laser printers will know how much toner dust makes grime on everything.
So if you think you have such powers, you really need to test it again yourself using much tighter controls: For a start, you should expect to not move or use your hands for anything while testing is happening. You might also try your testing using glass or paste jewels - much cheaper for a start, and should be much easier to break.
As for the PC stuff, there are so many variables like microphone sensitivity and directionality, plus software processing, that could affect recordings that your protocol is frankly completely disorganised and is not going to go anywhere.
You really need to be far better organised with this testing. For a start, try to work out EXACTLY what the effect is you are testing for, and stick with that. This is what JREF will be looking for in your protocol. Just picking something, ANYTHING that happened that is different every time you try is not proper testing at all. In fact it's a perfect example of how NOT to design tests - so many things wrong with that, I'm afraid.
As others have said, you need to focus. You are all over the place currently.
So if you think you have such powers, you really need to test it again yourself using much tighter controls: For a start, you should expect to not move or use your hands for anything while testing is happening. You might also try your testing using glass or paste jewels - much cheaper for a start, and should be much easier to break.
As for the PC stuff, there are so many variables like microphone sensitivity and directionality, plus software processing, that could affect recordings that your protocol is frankly completely disorganised and is not going to go anywhere.
You really need to be far better organised with this testing. For a start, try to work out EXACTLY what the effect is you are testing for, and stick with that. This is what JREF will be looking for in your protocol. Just picking something, ANYTHING that happened that is different every time you try is not proper testing at all. In fact it's a perfect example of how NOT to design tests - so many things wrong with that, I'm afraid.
As others have said, you need to focus. You are all over the place currently.