Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
There's a problem with #3, highlighted. If you hear something in the recording, you may take that as proof of spirits talking, but it really doesn't do anything to discount the mundane pareidolia explanation.

Is there a second person (scrappy?) who can to make out the same voices as you? If so, we can take one step closer to a protocol.

Another possibility would be can what you hear be responsive to some question? It would need to be a question to which you do not already know the answer, but can be easily verified later. If so, we can take two big steps and a small leap closer to a protocol.
Click to expand...

If I hear something within the recording here on my machine, and it alters in the same way on the recording of the participants machine, this indicates something afoot, yes, no?
 
flaccon said:
...
3. I will play them through this machine, and see if there are any significant differences made on the recordings that they originally generated.

I think it's worth a try before eliminating.
Click to expand...
flaccon said:
If I hear something within the recording here on my machine, and it alters in the same way on the recording of the participants machine, this indicates something afoot, yes, no?
Click to expand...


How will you demonstrate that a file has changed?
 
Last edited:
flaccon said:
If I hear something within the recording here on my machine, and it alters in the same way on the recording of the participants machine, this indicates something afoot, yes, no?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that for example you and all other participants PM what they hear to Pixel42 (for example)? When she has all the returns, Pixel posts them for all to see?

Sounds good to me
 
Alderbank said:
I've lost it somewhere, abaddon. What is the paranormal thing that this straightforward test would show?
Click to expand...
Werrll, hopefully, for step one we nail down a solid procedure for whatever procedure is required to create such recordings. All sorts of basic things such as format used recording software used, audio settings etc. In sufficient detail that any of us could replicate the same steps as flaccon, including wire touching and such like actions.

If flaccon can do it, and any of us have similar or the same gear, then we should be able to replicate her steps. Flaccon even gets to choose the optimum procedure for any of us to follow. Hell, if the protocol allowed moving the USB webcam I could potentially field ten candidate platforms but I think three is an elegant sufficiency. A neighbour, reading this thread, even volunteered her lappy so that's eleven.

Without even proceeding to step 2, this would nail the process of capturing these voices or whatever, or reveal that the voices were particular to either of flaccon or flaccon's laptop.

If step 1 were successful (and success criteria would have to be specified) then you move to step two, but not before.
 
flaccon said:
If I hear something within the recording here on my machine, and it alters in the same way on the recording of the participants machine, this indicates something afoot, yes, no?
Click to expand...

It would be evidence, but only if you don't tell them what you think it changed to first.


Daylightstar said:
How will you demonstrate that a file has changed?
Click to expand...

Actually, it really doesn't matter whether any real change occurs, as long as we got some folks independently deciding they now all hear the same thing. It is still a loose protocol at this point, so we can postpone some additional requirements on the voices that would more reliably make pareidolia unlikely.
 
flaccon said:
I use a Youcam app which produces WMV files. Mr Roberts and Mr Bulger used the same Youcam app.

Two members with youcam application required. If it is re-enacted the exact same way as twice/three times before, we may get the same results.

Step required for play-back; The two members send their "noise-identified" recordings via email. I will download them and play them back using windows media player.
Click to expand...
OK, already we make progress, but don't skip ahead. Before I go looking for said app, is "Youcam" it's actual precise name? Is it freeware or payware?
 
jsfisher said:
...
Actually, it really doesn't matter whether any real change occurs, as long as we got some folks independently deciding they now all hear the same thing. It is still a loose protocol at this point, so we can postpone some additional requirements on the voices that would more reliably make pareidolia unlikely.
Click to expand...

Yes, okay, a kind of trial or preliminary test, as flaccon requested.

flaccon requests that participants who send their recordings to her, will have to identify noise and interference.
Will she do the same thing with her recordings?
Will the hypothetical voices appear on the same location in the file?

Is it perhaps is a good idea to agree on a standard for reporting on noise and interference?

Or is this trial more loose than that?
 
flaccon said:
I think we could possibly try a preliminary test here online?

1. Two members generate a recording (normal vol) and remain silent for the duration of the recordings.
2. Each send each other their recordings, and identify any noise or interference before sending them through to me.
3. I will play them through this machine, and see if there are any significant differences made on the recordings that they originally generated.

I think it's worth a try before eliminating.
Click to expand...

I hesitate to throw in my two cents, as too many cooks can spoil the protocol, so if this muddies the waters, please reject it, BUT

I think it's better to start with the *claim* first, get that solid, and then figure out what a test might look like.

Is the claim, perhaps, that the above procedure would test,

1. "my computer (only mine? or others' computers too?) will change the computer file of a sound recording merely by playing it on my computer."

2. "when played on my computer, a computer file (edited: the same computer file) will sound different than when played on anyone else's computer"

Is your claim more specific than that the sound files are merely changed, perhaps that words are clearly (or barely) heard when played on your computer that are absent on others' computers?

Or some variation of the above?
 
Last edited:
Vortigern99 said:
Tracey, what did you mean when you wrote in this thread:

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

Are you, or were you previously, holding the speaker wires when you listen(ed) to an audio file and hear(d) voices?
Click to expand...

No, originally I made a recording via youcam, to try to catch the long creaks that were running down the walls (2.5 years ago) On play-back I got a sentence come through, and no creak was present. I didn't record again til Oct 2012. I hold the speaker to listen in yes, sometimes it is loud enough so I don't need to hold the speaker. As I record, everything is completely silent, my speakers or any wires are not touched.

It was explained to me that the spirits are coming through me and into the computer, manipulating the wires in order to manifest their voices.

I don't know what else to make of that explanation.

Can someone please explain fully, what a sock puppet is? thank u.
 
OK, let me see if I'm following this.

1. Forum members A and B generate recordings as directed by flaccon

2. A and B play back their recordings and make a note of any sounds or words they hear. They then generate an MD5 hash for the file.

3. A and B then send their files, notes and hashes to each other. They send the files only to flaccon

4. A and B listen to each other's recordings and verify the notes and hashes are correct

5. flaccon plays back the two recordings and makes a note of any words she thinks she hears. She sends them to forum member C.

6. A and B listen again to their own and each other's recordings, and make a note of any words they can now hear that were not apparent before. They send the results to C. They also regenerate the hashes.

7. C posts what words A, B and flaccon say they heard

So what's the success criteria? That all 3 hear the same words? That the hashes change?
 
flaccon said:
...
the spirits are coming through me and into the computer, manipulating the wires in order to manifest their voices.

I don't know what else to make of that explanation.
....
Click to expand...
Do you mean that they go through your fingers into the computer because your fingers touch the keyboard, since your fingers connect you to your computer?
 
Pixel42 said:
OK, let me see if I'm following this.

1. Forum members A and B generate recordings as directed by flaccon

2. A and B play back their recordings and make a note of any sounds or words they hear. They then generate an MD5 hash for the file.

3. A and B then send their files, notes and hashes to each other. They send the files only to flaccon

4. A and B listen to each other's recordings and verify the notes and hashes are correct

5. flaccon plays back the two recordings and makes a note of any words she thinks she hears. She sends them to forum member C.

6. A and B listen again to their own and each other's recordings, and make a note of any words they can now hear that were not apparent before. They send the results to C. They also regenerate the hashes.

7. C posts what words A, B and flaccon say they heard

So what's the success criteria? That all 3 hear the same words? That the hashes change?
Click to expand...

Is it falsifiable? By that I mean if no files change at all and every declared result matches with every other is that a success or failure?
 
Pixel42 said:
So what's the success criteria? That all 3 hear the same words? That the hashes change?
Click to expand...

In a previous test, the hash did not change.

I was thnking the claim went something like this:

Spirited version: The spirits may add their voices to a recording made of nothing more than background noise (and digital artifacts) when it is played back on flaccon's computer. Flaccon can identify these voices as clear and distinct words and maybe sentences. Also, the spirits modify copies of the same audio file on any nearby computers so they playback the same. Others can hear the same spirit voices on them. The modification may not be observable in any other way.

Non-spirited version: Flaccon may identify words and possibly sentences on a recording made of nothing more than background noise. Independently of flaccon or each other, Scrappy and Mr. Bulger can identify the very same words and possible sentences from copies of the same files on their computers.
 
flaccon said:
Vortigern99 said:
Tracey, what did you mean when you wrote in this thread:

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

Are you, or were you previously, holding the speaker wires when you listen(ed) to an audio file and hear(d) voices?
Click to expand...

No, originally I made a recording via youcam, to try to catch the long creaks that were running down the walls (2.5 years ago) On play-back I got a sentence come through, and no creak was present. I didn't record again til Oct 2012. I hold the speaker to listen in yes, sometimes it is loud enough so I don't need to hold the speaker. As I record, everything is completely silent, my speakers or any wires are not touched.

It was explained to me that the spirits are coming through me and into the computer, manipulating the wires in order to manifest their voices.

I don't know what else to make of that explanation.
Click to expand...

If you're not touching the wires, what did you mean about having "special fingers" (a claim you've repeated several times), and why did you write "they get through to the electric wires through my fingers" [italics added for emphasis]?
 
Alderbank said:
30 day trial. Windoze only, not Linux, IOS or Android.

Would Skype do the job just as well?
Click to expand...
I could probably cobble a Linux box together, but it might be more productive to ask flaccon if the voices appear in other apps, because that Youcam seems dedicated to compressing the bejeezus out of everything for easy youtube submission. And I very much doubt that a selection of JREF denizens would be willing to spring for this. I know I wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Non-spirited version: Flaccon may identify words and possibly sentences on a recording made of nothing more than background noise. Independently of flaccon or each other, Scrappy and Mr. Bulger can identify the very same words and possible sentences from copies of the same files on their computers.
Click to expand...

That's good, that's a revision of my proposed claim, this is an actual claim that the protocol can be measured against.

Flaccon, does the above describe what you (and scrappy and Mr. Bulger) are claiming?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom