Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
abaddon said:
Yay, so all of the participants create a silent audio file. Then what?
Click to expand...

Two participants to generate a silent file (normal volume)

Each participant sends their WMV recording to each other via email.

Each participant describes each others recording, after sending via email. If any interference has occurred after sending via email, it needs describing here to the thread. However, there should be no interference (only judging by Alderbanks personal upload of a silent file that remained silent after upload)

Once it is established that both recordings have been correctly described, hopefully as silent. A copy of both recordings are then sent to my email address.

I shall then download each recording and replay them using windows media player.

If I hear any noticeable differences, that do not correspond to the written descriptions of the participants, they should then check their own original recording to see if that too has altered in the same manner.

I can then upload both recordings to Box.com.
 
desertgal said:
If that is the case, and flaccon refuses to use any other software, then the results would be unreliable?
Click to expand...

All I am suggesting is, if it is done the same way that it was originally done, we may get some sort of result. I am not trying to use a "chosen" application, I am just trying to test it in the manner that has so far provided me with noticeable results.
 
Sheesh, this is a fast moving thread

Alderbank said:
Do all the participants have to have their own individual copies of Youcam? I got the impression that floccan sent a file to scrappy - he did not generate it himself.
Click to expand...
Legally speaking, yes. For anyone willing to participate, a fully licenced copy of Youcam would be required. The only other options are a wild attempt to synchronise a 30 day trial window (a challenge), or outright flying the Jolly Roger (illegal).

Alderbank said:
Could floccan make a file for each participant and email it to them?
Click to expand...
I shall assume for now that flaccon has a fully licenced copy, I have no reason to think otherwise. flaccon can make as many files as she likes and send them to whoever she likes. We still cannot repeat her steps, only comment on her results.

Alderbank said:
Could floccan make e.g. 10 files and send them to the invigilator who would randomly send a file to each participant?
Click to expand...
It matters not a whit if flaccon makes 50,000 files and sends them to a hundred invigilators. If flaccon is the only source we have no way to be certain if she created the file the way she said, or simply downloaded something from BBC radio 1 and mashed it to unintelligibility. That is not an accusation BTW, there is simply no way to tell unless we can replicate her steps.
 
Alderbank said:
Do all the participants have to have their own individual copies of Youcam? I got the impression that floccan sent a file to scrappy - he did not generate it himself.

Could floccan make a file for each participant and email it to them?

Could floccan make e.g. 10 files and send them to the invigilator who would randomly send a file to each participant?
Click to expand...

Sorry for any confusement Alderbank, it has been explained in #3442, but if the explanation from scrappy is not clear enough, I shall try to re-word/simplify, whatever it takes.

Please, call me Tracey if it makes it easier for the post.
 
Last edited:
flaccon said:
All I am suggesting is, if it is done the same way that it was originally done, we may get some sort of result. I am not trying to use a "chosen" application, I am just trying to test it in the manner that has so far provided me with noticeable results.
Click to expand...

But the software is almost guaranteed to add artifacts...hence your "noticeable results". You ARE trying to use a chosen application-it's the software YOU chose and so far demand others use according to the protocol proposed thus far.

Seems like you're attempting to game the system.
 
desertgal said:
If that is the case, and flaccon refuses to use any other software, then the results would be unreliable?
Click to expand...

Inconclusive might be a better and kinder word.

If you were to press me, I would say flaccon has dug the hole deeper, as she has added the claim that this only works if you use a truely horrible piece of software.

If you were to press me further, I would violate the MA.
 
flaccon said:
Two participants to generate a silent file (normal volume)

Each participant sends their WMV recording to each other via email.

Each participant describes each others recording, after sending via email. If any interference has occurred after sending via email, it needs describing here to the thread. However, there should be no interference (only judging by Alderbanks personal upload of a silent file that remained silent after upload)

Once it is established that both recordings have been correctly described, hopefully as silent. A copy of both recordings are then sent to my email address.

I shall then download each recording and replay them using windows media player.

If I hear any noticeable differences, that do not correspond to the written descriptions of the participants, they should then check their own original recording to see if that too has altered in the same manner.

I can then upload both recordings to Box.com.
Click to expand...

Although it was with WAV and not WMV files, we have already done this experiment. A file sent to scrappy had no distinguishable spirit voices until after the same file was played on flaccon's computer. Then, a very specific word was heard by both flacccon and scrappy on their respective computers on playback of their respective files.

Others, however, could not hear the specific word, nor had the file changed, at least according to its MD5 hash.

Without someone who can reliable hear the same things flaccon hears on a give recording, we are heading towards a dead-end we have already visited. This someone (scrappy?) needs to hear what flaccon hears independently, though. Flaccon cannot tell him or her what she heard first.
 
desertgal said:
But the software is almost guaranteed to add artifacts...hence your "noticeable results". You ARE trying to use a chosen application-it's the software YOU chose and so far demand others use according to the protocol proposed thus far.

Seems like you're attempting to game the system.
Click to expand...

That's what experimental control groups are supposed to prevent.

This isn't a test proposal. I'm not exactly sure what it is, but it's not an effort to produce evidence of any paranormal event.
 
desertgal said:
But the software is almost guaranteed to add artifacts...hence your "noticeable results". You ARE trying to use a chosen application-it's the software YOU chose and so far demand others use according to the protocol proposed thus far.

Seems like you're attempting to game the system.
Click to expand...

Windows has a built in app, found in Start menu->Programs->Accessories->Sound recorder.

Everyone here, or at least most, are bound to have it. Its free. Can flaccon reproduce her effects with that?
 
abaddon said:
Windows has a built in app, found in Start menu->Programs->Accessories->Sound recorder.

Everyone here, or at least most, are bound to have it. Its free. Can flaccon reproduce her effects with that?
Click to expand...

Well, it produces a WMA file, which is basically the audio portion of a WMV file.
 
Let me get this straight. Correct me if I have missed something important while sulking.

We are looking for the proper software to test whether or not Tracey and Robin hear the same thing, Independently, without being in cahoots, out there in England, away from prying eyes? This seems like a problem.

It also seems like we're trying to test against the existence of pareidolia. Spirits, not so much.

:bricks:
 
This software issue is reminiscent of my previously expressed concern about file types. Is it right, flaccon, that you are in contact with spirits that can be the savior of all mankind but only if you use a certain software package? I sure hope they are getting a good cut of the deal.

Bridge, sale, etc.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
This software issue is reminiscent of my previously expressed concern about file types. Is it right, flaccon, that you are in contact with spirits that can be the savior of all mankind but only if you use a certain software package? I sure hope they are getting a good cut of the deal.

Bridge, sale, etc.
Click to expand...

90 pages, ladies and gents. 90. Pages.
 
IXP said:
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."
<snip>

IXP
Click to expand...

Well, if nothing else, I can at least include something educational in this thread.

Shr Shr would be "Yes yes". It's the verb "to be" or "is/are". It is used as confirmation.

Shi Shi isn't close enough to "thank you" which is normally shown in pinyin as "xie xie". The x is a long hissing sibilant and the i and e are similar to the pronunciations in the romance languages ee for i and ay for e, so you get something like "hsssee-ay hsssee-ay". If you want to cheat just say "shay shay".

This message has been brought to you by the Foolmewunz Institute for the Inclusion of Something Marginally Useful In the Worst Lost Cause Threads Known to Mankind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom