Looking for Skeptics

[truethat]

ATTENTION

I forwarded the email from [email protected] TO [email protected] because you could see the picture of TP and her email. I deleted the original email.

I felt she might not be aware of this fact and had compromised her privacy.

FLACCON

Sign into the email at [email protected]

the password is randijref R A N D I J R E F all lower case.

Use this email to communicate. Just keep sending from and to [email protected] in order to preserve your privacy.

Keep in mind that anyone can sign in and see the emails. So if you wish to make it more private, simply sign in and change the password. Then PM the password to those you would like to have access.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I hand over my everything, including a landline (that's a first by the way) I have nothing to hide, and nothing to lose, for the first time in 20 years. No one may be willing to trust me with an email address, but the offer is always there. Maybe Alderbank will trust me to send him a file? and may be you will all trust Alderbank to be kosher, and deliver you the file? But maybe, if we put "mistrust" on hold, we could seriously move forward.

Flaccon:

PM me and I will send you an e-mail address to which you may send any file to which you would like me to listen...

 

[Pixel42]

I would think it best if we asked the spirits. I do believe once you hear them, there will be no need for testing to see if they are actually spirits

I can't speak for Alderbank but I reiterate that I wouldn't be prepared to make the trip unless a proper test protocol and success criteria were agreed in advance. Thinking you can make out words in noise is not evidence of spirits, even if I also think so, you need to demonstrate that you are receiving information that could not be otherwise obtained.

 

[Cassidy]

If you click on the little "go to first unread post" button (just in front of the thread title) you will never miss a post.

You don't need to login to anything to send an email to an email address.

Thanks that good. The problem arises when I reply to a post and lose the next in line, but I will get the hang in time.

 

[AdMan]

I downloaded your three files, and listened to them on high-quality UlltimateEars phones.

First of all, I did not discern any voices whatsoever, but there were sounds I might not expect in just an ambient recording in realatively "silent" room, and they appear to be electronically generated. These do not appear to me to be just unmanipulated tracks of a recording in a regular room. I think we'll need to have more details on your recording situation. What and where exactly were you recording? Just ambient sound in your home? Where was your microphone located?

 

[Cassidy]

I downloaded your three files, and listened to them on high-qualtiy UlltimateEars phones.

First of all, I did not discern any voices whatsoever, but there were sounds I might not expect in just an ambient recording in alatively "silent" room. I think we'll need to have more details on your recording situation. What and where exactly were you recording? Just ambient sound in your home? Where was your microphone located?

I asked you to use external speakers, I have tried quality earphones, it was poor sound. Your response above will influence others. Completely silent room, and built-in microphone. If you say you hear little or nothing, earphones are not good, and hands-on is a lot clearer.

 

[AdMan]

I asked you to use external speakers, I have tried quality earphones, it was poor sound. Your response above will influence others. Completely silent room, and built-in microphone. If you say you hear little or nothing, earphones are not good, and hands-on is a lot clearer.

You apparently don't understand audio technology. You're apparently saying I should use poorer speakers, and then I'll be able to hear whatever you think I should be hearing. That's a crappy argument, because you're saying more noise/distortion/crap is best.

Why don't you fully explain how you got the recordings in the first place, with all the technical details? That needs to be the starting point. Then we may discuss how best to listen to it.

There's some noise/distortion, but whether it's coming from some phone, TV, radio, internet interference, etc. is impossible to tell with just that recording.

Spirits? Not very likely.

 

[Cassidy]

You apparently don't understand audio technology.

Why don't you fully explain how you got the recordings? That needs to be the starting point. Then we may discuss how best to listen to it.

I have been fully explaining. I press record in a silent room, and use Bose C2 external speakers on max volume. I'm not sure what else I can say other than that.

 

[AdMan]

I have been fully explaining. I press record in a silent room, and use Bose C2 external speakers on max volume. I'm not sure what else I can say other than that.

The recording that you posted don't contain anything like what you think they did.

Though anyone following this thread is encouraged to post otherwise.

 

[marplots]

The recording that you posted don't contain anything like what you think they did.

Though anyone following this thread is encouraged to post otherwise.

We might be running into technical naivete here. Is there a way you can make a clickable link in this forum so that:
1) Any of us can listen to what you are listening to.
2) Flaccon can tell us whether she hears the voices on it (the version posted here)

That would give us a double check to make sure everyone is on the same page, and possibly expose some error.

 

[bluesjnr]

I have downloaded and listened to your recordings on a set of Panasonic SB SF-900 speakers. These are mid range speakers and as such should be fit for the purpose. I'm afraid that, although there are sounds on the recordings, there is nothing on them that I would attribute to a human voice.

I would ask you to confirm where you have the laptop when you are recording as the sound on the first recording (you claim it is your father) sounds like slight movement of the case. It's the kind of thing you hear when people zoom in with a cheap camera on video mode. Is it on your lap or on a table, are you touching it?

Thank you very much for taking the time to upload these. I'll have another listen on another set of speakers when I get home as I'm away at the moment.

ETA - I listened again on a small portable speaker I have and it's still inconclusive.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Yes more than 2 people hear the same words/sentences.

Without you telling them what you heard?

Yes, without telling them what I hear.

These people, do you tell them who you think is speaking?

Do they hear just a few words similar to the words you heard?

The people who confirmed they heard your father - did you tell them it was your father? Did you mention your father at all during the times you were telling them about the spirit recordings?

Be honest with us, and especially with yourself, please.

 

[Pixel42]

I downloaded your three files, and listened to them on high-quality UlltimateEars phones.

First of all, I did not discern any voices whatsoever

I have downloaded and listened to your recordings on a set of Panasonic SB SF-900 speakers. These are mid range speakers and as such should be fit for the purpose. I'm afraid that, although there are sounds on the recordings, there is nothing on them that I would attribute to a human voice.

I can't say I'm surprised, but I admit to being disappointed.

flaccon: there is an easy way to prove that the voices you and your witnesses think you hear really are there and are not pareidolia, and that is to obtain information from them that you could not have got any other way. That is precisely what the simple test protocol that has been described to you is designed to establish. If you get a positive result there are posters here who are willing to travel to Chester to observe you repeat the test and confirm your results. Unless you are prepared to do such a test then there isn't really anything further we can do to assist you.

 

[Stray Cat]

Flaccon firstly, thank you for uploading the files.
I have all five of them now and have just finished examining the one labelled as Test 2 and which you identified as your father's voice.

I have listened to this file both through a pair of headphones and through a Yamaha P2050 180watt amp hooked up to a pair of Bose 402 panaray speakers.

The files are all WMV files and I first had to open the one I've examined in Quicktime in order to save it as .wav to load into my recording software (I had Garageband to hand today and it's loaded with many extra filters and power ups so even though it's not 'top end' software, it does the job great). I'm only stating this because it's important that people know the processes that the files have gone through in case any stage would either introduce known audio artifacts or make potential spirit voices disappear.

Once the .wav file was loaded into Garageband the first thing to notice is that the sample waveform looks like a flat line (it has actually got a few very minor bumps in it) and that the unprocessed file only contains hiss, some electronic chirping and a few low frequency 'thwumps' all at a very low signal strength as would be expected by such a flat line sample.

By running the signal through a Dynamic Processor (used as an expander) and a Maximiser, I can amplify the whole signal so it peaks into the red on the output (that's taking a low signal and making it a strong but dirty signal, thus having the same effect as playing it on a maxed out amp and speakers).

Then using Garageband's own Visual EQ (basically a four band parametric equaliser), I reduced the top end hiss and searched the frequencies where the human voice is most likely to respond (between 80 to 1100hz with the most response usually coming from 400 to 1000hz).

There are no discernible voices in this file. The only thing that sounds like anything at all is a noise that sounds like a dog barking at 2.2.1.000.

I have some other stuff I need to do right now but I will examine the other files later.

If Flaccon agrees, I can upload the processed file to a Soundcloud account I have where I sometimes put my less successful (and unfinished) music recordings. As far as I know it can't be traced back to me and I'd be OK with doing that as long as people don't start taking the pith out of my music stuff.
This will enable everyone to have a listen including Flaccon who can confirm if she can still hear the voices in the processed file or not.

 

[Belz...]

Yes the replies stay on the recording. I'm not certain exactly how it works, but that's the test I did a few times.

Of course you know how that works, because we've explained it to you: YOU are the one imagining the voices. They're not there. It's not like none of us has had similar run-ins with self-delusion.

 

[Cassidy]

Flaccon firstly, thank you for uploading the files.
I have all five of them now and have just finished examining the one labelled as Test 2 and which you identified as your father's voice.

I have listened to this file both through a pair of headphones and through a Yamaha P2050 180watt amp hooked up to a pair of Bose 402 panaray speakers.

The files are all WMV files and I first had to open the one I've examined in Quicktime in order to save it as .wav to load into my recording software (I had Garageband to hand today and it's loaded with many extra filters and power ups so even though it's not 'top end' software, it does the job great). I'm only stating this because it's important that people know the processes that the files have gone through in case any stage would either introduce known audio artifacts or make potential spirit voices disappear.

Once the .wav file was loaded into Garageband the first thing to notice is that the sample waveform looks like a flat line (it has actually got a few very minor bumps in it) and that the unprocessed file only contains hiss, some electronic chirping and a few low frequency 'thwumps' all at a very low signal strength as would be expected by such a flat line sample.

By running the signal through a Dynamic Processor (used as an expander) and a Maximiser, I can amplify the whole signal so it peaks into the red on the output (that's taking a low signal and making it a strong but dirty signal, thus having the same effect as playing it on a maxed out amp and speakers).

Then using Garageband's own Visual EQ (basically a four band parametric equaliser), I reduced the top end hiss and searched the frequencies where the human voice is most likely to respond (between 80 to 1100hz with the most response usually coming from 400 to 1000hz).

There are no discernible voices in this file. The only thing that sounds like anything at all is a noise that sounds like a dog barking at 2.2.1.000.

I have some other stuff I need to do right now but I will examine the other files later.

If Flaccon agrees, I can upload the processed file to a Soundcloud account I have where I sometimes put my less successful (and unfinished) music recordings. As far as I know it can't be traced back to me and I'd be OK with doing that as long as people don't start taking the pith out of my music stuff.
This will enable everyone to have a listen including Flaccon who can confirm if she can still hear the voices in the processed file or not.

I had a witness download the files as I uploaded them last night, He has just called me and informed me that he can hardly hear any of them. I did not expect him to hear much from Test 4 & 5. I replayed the same files over the landline, for comparison of volume. He informs me that there has been a great loss of volume after transfer. I called a friend and transferred her a file, then replayed it via landline, she has confirmed that there is great loss of volume. Via landline, or hands-on, there is no mistaking that there are voices present, including background entanglement. It should at the least come across like a T.V, or someone "live" talking.

Your last paragraph is good, to enable me to hear what you are hearing. Also, if a kind member would like to call the landline to compare the volume of the originals, without the transference, that would also be as interesting.

I am starting to think about adverting for 10 sceptics in my local area, and hiring a room for a good hands-on session. Could be a good idea.

 

[Drs_Res]

flaccon, a question for you.

What happens if you just record nothing, and then you play it back without asking any questions? Do you still hear voices in the recording?


I just generated 30 seconds of silence and asked the spirits a question, I then hit the play button and got ...silence. So that did not work for me. I did save the file as a .WAV.

They talk on every recording yes. You using external speakers on max volume? Why did you attempt this? Is your house haunted or were you just experimenting? I didn't realise that the spirits could get thru to my machine for 13 years.

Hilite added by me.

Yes, I use external speakers and I did turn them and all the audio settings on my computer up as far as they could go.

I attempted this because I was trying to replicate your results. It's one of those things that some of us try to do if we can.

No, my house is not haunted. I kind of wish it was though, it would make life a bit more interesting.

 

[Stray Cat]

Your last paragraph is good, to enable me to hear what you are hearing.

Here you go then:

File labelled; 'Test 2 Father's voice' (processed as described above)
https://soundcloud.com/the-psycho-clown/audiotest

Flaccon; If at any time you want me to delete the file, just ask.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Hi, flaccon. Nice to see you trying to get to the bottom of this.

I had a witness download the files as I uploaded them last night, He has just called me and informed me that he can hardly hear any of them. I did not expect him to hear much from Test 4 & 5. I replayed the same files over the landline, for comparison of volume. He informs me that there has been a great loss of volume after transfer.

Is the 'transfer' I highlighted above referring to you sending your audio files to the aforementioned e-mail account? If not, what is it referring to, so we can ensure there won't be any loss of volume to hinder us in the future?

 

[Cassidy]

Of course you know how that works, because we've explained it to you: YOU are the one imagining the voices. They're not there. It's not like none of us has had similar run-ins with self-delusion.

It isn't "imagination" at work, I have completely tested for that myself. I have demonstrated to private group of 4 people. a GP with a witness present (Mr Cederberg) A Priest with a witness present (Mr Roberts) and 8 further individuals. All but one confirm most definitely, a spirit-world. All 3 family member's confirm our Father's voice. The person that would not confirm, accused me of staging the voices. There will be legal documentation, going back 20 years, of "unexplained" accounts. I do have every name and date of everything that has been legally documented.