Looking for Skeptics

[Cassidy]

No, nobody could. You would hear the hum of their fans, any ambient noise and so on.

That's not so. I tried a recording on a friends Samsung laptop, using my speakers, and the recording was totally silent other than a small speaker hiss.

If no one sends me a silent recording, I will have one by tonight, and look into it later.

If I was to press play on a transferred file, and the spirits could manipulate that file, then I could send it back to the sender, altered.

 

[iknownothing]

Just an idea I had about where part of the problem is:

flaccon seems to have some trouble communicating her ideas, which I don't think is intentional. She'll make a passing reference to something as if it is understood, without quite getting that it's coming out of nowhere to others. And then she has to be asked repeatedly for clarification. She also doesn't seem to know what she doesn't know -- like a word or concept that other people are using, like "pareidolia", "frequency", or "entanglement"; she'll join right in and use those words, not realizing she's using them incorrectly and making it harder to understand what she's getting at.

(And flaccon, I don't mean this as insulting at all. I often struggle with communicating too. Which you can tell from the sheer number of words it's taking me to articulate this. )

What I'm wondering is if this is something that goes both ways: trouble distinguishing the boundaries between her ideas and those of others. As in, she doesn't anticipate that other people won't share her assumptions and ideas, and then on questioning has trouble explaining them. And when she hears people talking about terms she doesn't understand (like "frequency") she doesn't seem to recognize that those are specific terms totally separate from her ideas about the "wires". And, my point (finally), trouble accepting that voices that seem external are really the workings of her own perceptions.

The reason I bring all this up, is because I am thinking this is a stumbling block for her, something that complicates the effects of pareidolia. And something that is making communication difficult in this thread. No idea what to do with that.

(flaccon, again I do not mean this to be rude. I guess I'm just thinking it might help communication in this thread if we can identify some of the problem.)

 

[abaddon]

I don't like to call it a frequency, I call it entanglement, but I refer to it as a frequency because posters mention frequency. I understand the word frequent.

Frequency has a specific meaning. The human ear responds to roughly 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. In the electronics, a lot of effort is spent trying to replicate that. In a cheapo webcam, not so much.

 

[bluesjnr]

Intersting side note. Someone pointed out the bob white. We have a "cheeseburger bird" here that appears to say just that.

Why don't you call it the "Just That" bird then? Cheeseburger bird doesn't make sense!

 

[iknownothing]

I regret the day I ever learned that towhees were supposed to say, "drink your tea." Now they don't say anything else.

The white throated sparrow is supposed to sing/say "O Canada," but oddly that's one I just can't hear. There's nothing close enough to a hard C to prompt the words, so I just hear a whistled tune.

Back when I was pumping breastmilk 2 or 3 times a day at work, I used to hear nonsense phrases in the sound of the pump. It would be the same phrase repeated over & over during one session, but then the next time it might be a different phrase. I knew it wasn't real but it just nearly drove me out of my mind, wishing I could stop hearing it. Since then I've heard other people have heard words from the breastpump too. It's that enforced sitting for 20 minutes listening to a sound repeated over & over -- you hear something whether you want to or not!

 

[Donn]

flaccon - thank you for removing those particular sections from your website. It brings hope.

 

[Donn]

General question to webcam owners - Can you create a short WMV file that replicates the samples we have been hearing recently?

Audio question - Can one save a silent file (Audacity generated) and compress it such that it begins to pop and warble somewhat? i.e. Can sounds be introduced by compression alone?

 

[Drs_Res]

Could someone with a basic youcam app please record silence for approx 15 seconds and send it through to my email address? On playback I should hear silence.

Why do you want someone to use a webcam program to do audio recordings?
Why do you limit your recordings to 12 - 15 seconds?
You have already demonstrated that to your self, remember:

Now ask a "spirit" a question or whatever it is you do. Replay that silent recording. Any replies?

Total silence.

I have a 30 second audio file I'll send to the G-mail address. It's a .wav file.
The name of the file is: Spirit_communication_test_1.wav


ETA: Someone changed the password on the g-mail account, I was going to send the file from that account to that account. Not going to send the file there now.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

That's not so. I tried a recording on a friends Samsung laptop, using my speakers, and the recording was totally silent other than a small speaker hiss.

If no one sends me a silent recording, I will have one by tonight, and look into it later.

If I was to press play on a transferred file, and the spirits could manipulate that file, then I could send it back to the sender, altered.

I've been following this thread from the start (and cheered when Alderbank made the visit. Thank you for the taking the time and investigating!), but I still don't understand - are the voices being recorded or not? I believe you said you could hear different words in earlier recordings that weren't there before. Are these new words now on the audio file, which would mean a simple playback alters the audio file?

Alternatively, I was thinking that the spirits just use the playback function to get through and their voices aren't being recorded at all, but you tried the silent track and that produced no voices, so that's not it.

Incidentally, when you are dealing with something as vague as garbled background noise and compression artifacts, it's totally consistent and expected in case of pareidolia to hear different things than you did before on earlier recordings. Nothing changed in the audio file - your mind just makes different connections this time.

 

[Donn]

flaccon,
This:

Yes one has to listen multiple times.

Is exactly the same as interpretation.
It's familiarization.
It's getting one's ear in.
It's becoming relaxed into a string of sounds and letting your brain decode them.

... I don't apply interpretation, if I don't hear it, I discard it.

You do apply interpretation. If not, why are multiple replays needed?

A discarded hearing is always fuel for a future recognition. Why?

Just for a moment, be honest with yourself, have there ever been words as clear as those from a visiting, real, warm, breathing human?

 

[Stray Cat]

General question to webcam owners - Can you create a short WMV file that replicates the samples we have been hearing recently?

I've been meaning to look into this. I did have a look at YouCam but it's not available for Mac.

Audio question - Can one save a silent file (Audacity generated) and compress it such that it begins to pop and warble somewhat? i.e. Can sounds be introduced by compression alone?

No I don't think it would be possible.
It would be like saving a completely white picture out of Photoshop as a .jpg using the lowest quality, highest compression setting. There is nothing to compress any information out of and therefore no artifacts to be introduced around.

 

[Biscuit]

I don't jiggle any wires about no.

Then what on earth do mean when you are talking about your fingers?

Do you understand the reason for the silent recording, why its not in the wires, and why the "voices" are in the actual recording and not manipulated on play back?

I have no idea how they are doing this, they explain they can manipulate their speech through me to the wires. Just as the can perform art through me.

Why don't you ask them? We have ruled out the wires as being the source.

I don't make claims of the past hauntings, I merely state that the unusual parts are documented. I am not trying to use the past as evidence.

You have used your past claims to dismiss the most logical and rational explanation of pareidolia.

I want to thank you for removing some of the stuff from your website but I think you need to do more. You need to scrub the page of things like,

The spirits can be clearly heard by observers

Each voice is different, coherent with the here-and-now, and bringing serious knowledge.

There is over-powering evidence here of life after death,

Direct Conversation. The time is now to speak with our spirit guides AND receive back messages.

Those are just from the main page. You can not back up any of these claims.

I would also suggest, when time allows, you add a section detailing the process and equipment you use, your conversation here, and the "spirits" utter refusal to be independently verified. You should inform people that the spirits can only know and see what you already know and see, that their voices are "gobbly gook" and require repeated play back and "training" to hear.

Imagine someone approached you with these fantastic claims that you have made on that web page and then imagine they presented you with what you have presented so far. You would be pretty upset and disappointed wouldn't you?

 

[Biscuit]

Back when I was pumping breastmilk 2 or 3 times a day at work, I used to hear nonsense phrases in the sound of the pump. It would be the same phrase repeated over & over during one session, but then the next time it might be a different phrase. I knew it wasn't real but it just nearly drove me out of my mind, wishing I could stop hearing it. Since then I've heard other people have heard words from the breastpump too. It's that enforced sitting for 20 minutes listening to a sound repeated over & over -- you hear something whether you want to or not!

My treadmill tells me, "Almost there! Almost there!" on repeat. It's odd because its a treadmill and we aren't going anywhere...

 

[SusanB-M1]

Posting to agree with Biscuit's posts; and many others of course.

 

[Donn]

I find those "flac tracks" to be mesmerizing. I could listen to longer versions for hours, but I'm weird. I listen to the Fall for fun. For kicks! I relish the Acid Bath days of Alien Sex Fiend. Yeah, this electro-bubble sub aqua fuzz is like soda-pop to me.

 

[Donn]

I've been meaning to look into this. I did have a look at YouCam but it's not available for Mac.

I'm on Linux, so even less chance.

It would be like saving a completely white picture out of Photoshop as a .jpg using the lowest quality, highest compression setting. There is nothing to compress any information out of and therefore no artifacts to be introduced around.

I tried it just in case and you are correct. Makes sense.

I'm too damn lazy - but you've got the chops: What do you think she'd make of a visual metaphor showing compression at work?


ETA: Fank Gudnz teh kitteh no moar asploding!

 

[Stray Cat]

I tried it just in case and you are correct. Makes sense.

Yes, I tried it too before I typed it. It's always best to do things that way.

I'm too damn lazy - but you've got the chops: What do you think she'd make of a visual metaphor showing compression at work?

Well the simplest way I can think of it is that here is an uncompressed graduated tint:

The transition from red to yellow (following around clockwise) is smooth and in audio terms would produce a gentle hiss at the most.

While in this highly compressed version of exactly the same pic, you can see the compression artifacts causing a very rough texture and colours that aren't actually in the original have been introduced:

These darker (greenish) pixels are where the spirits live.

ETA: Fank Gudnz teh kitteh no moar asploding!

I thought flaccon may appreciate a bishop who wanted to help instead of the one she's approached already who fobbed her off.

 

[trustbutverify]

Hi Flaccon, it’s me again.

For your own sanity and peace of mind, you must understand this ordeal is the result of your imaginative interpretation of sounds of an unknown origin to you. I recommend reading asydhouse’s posts again slowly and trying to really understand what he is saying and why.

But if you are going to dismiss all rational explanations and continue to “listen to the spirits”, don’t buy new equipment. I have great news for you and your budget. There is no need for the latest Mac with the best software. You don’t need better equipment. That’s the very last thing you need.

You need the oldest, worst quality recording rig you can possibly find.
Open wires are best.
Stay away from shielded cables and noise reduction software.
Run a blender nearby, maybe a microwave oven.

Then you can hear anything you want to your heart’s content.

No one else will hear what you hear, but you’ll have an easier time with your hobby.

Eventually, through the dynamics of group behavior, her family and close friends will hear exactly what she hears.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Audio question - Can one save a silent file (Audacity generated) and compress it such that it begins to pop and warble somewhat? i.e. Can sounds be introduced by compression alone?

Thinking it an interesting challenge I tried it and yes, you can. Generate silence in Audacity and export it as a .wav. Open the .wav in another audio editing program (I used Sound Forge). Normalise it and you'll get some white noise that you won't get by normalising it in Audacity. Export that as a low-quality mp3. Load it back into Audacity and normalise it again. Export that as a low-quality mp3 and you've got audio artefacts generated from silence.

They don't sound the same as flaccon's files, as hers have outside noises recorded on them, too, but the artefacts are clearly recognisable. I've got 2 files I generated like that. If Alderbank PMs me the password to the flaccon Soundcloud account he set up I'll upload them to there. He's then welcome to change the password so that I no longer have it.

Man, I wish I'd done this experiment this morning, because it strikes me that you could keep manipulating the files and produce all sorts of sounds. You could then cut them up, manipulate them some more, and arrange them. Seems like a fun project - creating music from absolute silence. It's a bit late in the day to get started on something like that right now, though, as I've got a very early morning tomorrow. But it's certainly filed away for future use.

 

[asydhouse]

Thinking it an interesting challenge I tried it and yes, you can. Generate silence in Audacity and export it as a .wav. Open the .wav in another audio editing program (I used Sound Forge). Normalise it and you'll get some white noise that you won't get by normalising it in Audacity. Export that as a low-quality mp3. Load it back into Audacity and normalise it again. Export that as a low-quality mp3 and you've got audio artefacts generated from silence.

They don't sound the same as flaccon's files, as hers have outside noises recorded on them, too, but the artefacts are clearly recognisable. I've got 2 files I generated like that. If Alderbank PMs me the password to the flaccon Soundcloud account he set up I'll upload them to there. He's then welcome to change the password so that I no longer have it.

Man, I wish I'd done this experiment this morning, because it strikes me that you could keep manipulating the files and produce all sorts of sounds. You could then cut them up, manipulate them some more, and arrange them. Seems like a fun project - creating music from absolute silence. It's a bit late in the day to get started on something like that right now, though, as I've got a very early morning tomorrow. But it's certainly filed away for future use.

Man that's a cool idea! Do it Squeegee! Minimalist Techno...