Looking for Skeptics

[Maurice Ledifficile]

If we are to determine whether or not it's a spirit speaking and not a more earthly voice, what can we do to work that question out?

We could ask for an honest account of who was recorded having a mundane conversation??

 

[tuxcat]

We could ask for an honest account of who was recorded having a mundane conversation??

True but what if flaccon says that these are her spirits talking? How would we be able to confirm that?

 

[trustbutverify]

It does appear that no matter what these spirits are showing me lately, altering files, uploading clear words, altering machines, it isn't proof enough. I really do need to bow out from here, and stop wasting people's time.

1.. "These spirits" aren't showing you anything lately. You're hearing what you want to hear.

2.. No files have been altered. Bit comparisons would reveal that, but they don't.

3.. No clear words have been uploaded. You're hearing what you want to hear.

4.. No machines have been altered, whatever that means.

You won't perform an objective test, designed to eliminate subjective interpretation, because you know exactly what the result of that would be. You made a half-hearted attempt with a deck of playing cards, had the truth revealed to you, and made sure never to repeat that mistake. You don't want your juvenile fantasy tested, you want it preserved.

 

[Alderbank]

If we are to determine whether or not it's a spirit speaking and not a more earthly voice, what can we she do to work that question out?

True but what if flaccon says that these are her spirits talking? How would we she be able to confirm that?

You accidentally got the burden of proof the wrong way round. fify

 

[tuxcat]

You accidentally got the burden of proof the wrong way round. fify

Thanks for that - it's one of the fallacies that I sometimes make

 

[Tomboy]

The flaccon_1 file reminds me of when I heard voices through my headphones while plugged into my laptop. It happened intermittently, and because I wasn't sure if I was really hearing what I thought I was hearing, I recorded a minute of it. My voices were more intelligible than the flaccon_1 file, and I ruled out hallucination by having a friend listen without any input from me other than that I was hearing voices through my headphones, and he quoted back word for word what I'd heard. I'd also like to think that if I were hallucinating, my imagination could come up with something more interesting than chit chat about car tires or gas mileage or some such.

Only thing I can figure is that the wireless antenna I used to connect to my router was picking up a ham radio signal, or maybe a push to talk cell phone signal. I don't know enough about audio tech or wavelength frequencies to know what the most probable source would have been. For the curious, here's my recording: https://soundcloud.com/renwolf/2011-10-15-voices-through

Apologies for the diversion. I've been following the thread and from the start it reminded me of when I heard voices through my laptop. & Now back to lurker mode for me.

 

[IXP]

Tomboy,

Those are actual voices. No relevance to what we are discussing here.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Tomboy,

Those are actual voices. No relevance to what we are discussing here.

Perhaps it is slightly relevant, in that flaccon can hear what actual voices would sound like.

 

[Tomboy]

Tomboy,

Those are actual voices. No relevance to what we are discussing here.

Oh, absolutely. I understand that. Sorry for any confusion. The flaccon_1 file sounded closer to real voices than any of the others, though, and I guess I'm sort of wondering if the kind of mixed signal that happened with my laptop could have caused the distorted sounding voices on that file.

 

[Daylightstar]

There have been many claims during this 3,500 post journey. It is reasonable, indeed expected, that many of these will have been abandoned or changed as the argument developed. I think we should work with tuxcat who is trying to establish what the current claims are and move forward from there. Historical claims are really, well just historical.

I don’t agree that a confrontation in this forum would be better for anybody. I reckon you move forward quicker when you all push in the same direction.

Just sayin'

Well, if the redacted areas in the letter from flaccon's GP contain statements which do not support flaccon's claim concerning her GP, then it would indeed be better for flaccon to face that.

Openness and transparancy of the whole case should be strived for. I'd really still want to see the whole body of the letter

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

There are real voices on flaccon1.

 

[Daylightstar]

flaccon, I'd like to draw your attention to this, yet again:

..., We don't belong in a circus. I listened in with her and said to her "I doubt you will hear that sentence its too long" She replied "Yes I got that sentence too" ...

... a spirit clearly but quietly says "It's evident we don't belong in a circus" ...

^{Hilites by Daylightstar}
flaccon, do you have in your possession a file in which such a sentence can clearly (and apparently repeatedly) be heard?

If so, I'd like to hear it. Could you email that file (email address via the icon below my post count) to me?
I'll extract the audio and post it here.

flaccon, could you respond meaningfully please?

 

[desertgal]

I can rule out hallucinations by doing this:... I can rule this out by searching out the witnesses in the Police dept, who heard a man chant at the top of his voice for 72 hours before breaking free of his cell.

How is that even relevant, and how does it rule out hallucinations?

I know it's not paredolia, nor am I deluded, by anything.

No, you can't know for certain, hence the need for an objective test. If that isn't what you want, then why are you even here?

 

[Daylightstar]

You accidentally got the burden of proof the wrong way round. fify

Or in order of quotes:

• by helping flaccon to device a protocol to test what she thinks or claims she experiences.

• by flaccon passing such a test and subsequent further testing and hypothetical subsequent confirmation of what flaccon now thinks or claims she experiences.

But you're right, the burden of proof is on flaccon.

 

[Vortigern99]

I don't manipulate wires btw. I prefer to record total silence.

And yet, flaccon is on record in this thread:

The spirits say to claim "special fingers"

these spirits wish me to claim something I am not comfortable with (Special fingers)

Being within, they get through to the electric wires through my fingers.

In what way do the "spirits" "get through to the electric wires through [flaccon's] fingers" if she is not somehow holding the wires?

I repeat my contention that Tracey is producing the sounds herself in the same way that JREF member abaddon used to do.

Tracey is hearing the amplified noise of the speaker wire's metal jack, rubbing against the metal computer port. As she listens to otherwise silent or ambient-noise-only audio files, Tracey hears these amplified "fidget" noises because she is manipulating the speaker wire with her fingers.

She then applies audio pareidolia in the usual, normal, human way, and hears "voices". She then attributes a spiritual source to these supposed voices.

This explains what Tracey has meant when she says she only hears the "voices" during playback of the silent files. It explains why she can hear the noises on "older records" and on a different laptop. It also explains why none of us on this end can hear them: we're not finger-manipulating the speaker wires.


I suggest a test protocol be devised to eliminate this possibility. One test in which she touches the wires in her usual way (whether she defines this as "manipulating wires" or not is irrelevant) as she listens to an audio file, and one in which her "special fingers" have no contact with the wires. I doubt flaccon/Tracey will agree to it, but there you go.

 

[scrappy]

Alderbank, I have no idea what this post is about ,it is full of assumptions that are very wrong . Of course I pick up the speakers to listen in . Jsfishers file did alter at 21 seconds and thereon .And the rest what you have written is wrong and badly misguides the group . The recording you repeatedly insist has the correct title "Wimbledon" has been incorrectly titled by you . I can confirm that this is the recording made at my home with the Rev C present . It was originally titled "Reverend C " .Please it is important to stick to facts only .


Ref to Alderbank hash 3345 .


P.S. it isn't a game .

 

[Donn]

Alderbank, I have no idea what this post is about ,it is full of assumptions that are very wrong . Of course I pick up the speakers to listen in . Jsfishers file did alter at 21 seconds and thereon .And the rest what you have written is wrong and badly misguides the group . The recording you repeatedly insist has the correct title "Wimbledon" has been incorrectly titled by you . I can confirm that this is the recording made at my home with the Rev C present . It was originally titled "Reverend C " .Please it is important to stick to facts only .

Oy gevalt!

 

[trustbutverify]

Alderbank, I have no idea what this post is about ,it is full of assumptions that are very wrong . Of course I pick up the speakers to listen in . Jsfishers file did alter at 21 seconds and thereon .And the rest what you have written is wrong and badly misguides the group . The recording you repeatedly insist has the correct title "Wimbledon" has been incorrectly titled by you . I can confirm that this is the recording made at my home with the Rev C present . It was originally titled "Reverend C " .Please it is important to stick to facts only .


Ref to Alderbank hash 3345 .


P.S. it isn't a game .

Are you speaking in code?

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Alderbank, I have no idea what this post is about ,it is full of assumptions that are very wrong . Of course I pick up the speakers to listen in . Jsfishers file did alter at 21 seconds and thereon .And the rest what you have written is wrong and badly misguides the group . The recording you repeatedly insist has the correct title "Wimbledon" has been incorrectly titled by you . I can confirm that this is the recording made at my home with the Rev C present . It was originally titled "Reverend C " .Please it is important to stick to facts only .


Ref to Alderbank hash 3345 .


P.S. it isn't a game .

Scrappy, titles are irrelevant. No one knows what you mean by "altered". There is enough clutter in this thread. Let the grown-ups do the talking. Thank you.

 

[IXP]

Alderbank, I have no idea what this post is about ,it is full of assumptions that are very wrong . Of course I pick up the speakers to listen in . Jsfishers file did alter at 21 seconds and thereon .And the rest what you have written is wrong and badly misguides the group . The recording you repeatedly insist has the correct title "Wimbledon" has been incorrectly titled by you . I can confirm that this is the recording made at my home with the Rev C present . It was originally titled "Reverend C " .Please it is important to stick to facts only .

The file was not altered, the MD5 hash proved that. What was altered was your perception of it.

BTW: The place where you think you hear "Robin", is just two bursts of noise to my ear. It sounds more like "sh sh". If I were Chinese, I would probably think it said Xi Xi, pronounced "Shi Shi", meaning "Thank you."

It is not nearly as much like speech as the "Evidence" or "Wimbledon" or "Apple Juice" or "It will do" on the recording labeled "Wimbledon". And it is very much a stretch to call that one speech. To say that there are clear, unmistakable words is just comical.

IXP