Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foolmewunz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Xie xie ni.
 
Now I'm starting to hear sentences coming out of my air conditioner.

Does anyone here have a deceased relative who sounded a little like an air conditioner?
 
Vortigern99 said:
90 pages, ladies and gents. 90. Pages.
Click to expand...
:) But unmissable now! I'm an optimist, soI am still waiting for the important message referred to somewhere at the very beginning!
And I am constantly impressed by the computer technical knowledge so many here have.

ETA trustbutverify: :D
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Look, all that has happened, is that I have found another ability of the spirits, they can alter files. I originally asked any member for a silent recording. There is no trickery or conning going on. Everything I have been accused of so far, has all been wrong. Members urged I bring a witness online, I did this and he's reported a sock puppet. All I am trying to do is replicate what happens when I run another persons file through this machine.

Please explain how I am using trickery? If a member generates a file and sends me a copy of it, and I play that copy through my laptop, it alters the original file, on a different computer that I have NOT touched. Where on earth is the trickery.

Mind you, being called a liar and a fraudster is a step up in my eyes.

I did not say it only works if... I have no idea about that, and I don't use guesswork.
 
Last edited:
I think people think that you, flaccon, tell scrappy (and others) what you think you've heard, and this prompts him to think he hears the same thing.
 
Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone accuse flaccon of trickery. Pointing out that the software she is using to generate her files will produce lots of compression artefacts, and hence much material ripe for pareidolia, is not accusing her of trickery.
 
flaccon said:
If a member generates a file and sends me a copy of it, and I play that copy through my laptop, it alters the original file, on a different computer that I have NOT touched. Where on earth is the trickery.
Click to expand...
We're trying to help you design a test protocol which will establish whether that really is happening; at the moment neither you nor we know whether it is or not, your perception that it does not being reliable (note: that would be true of me too, if I was the one perceiving the difference). Discussing ways in which the software you use to produce the recordings might be contributing to a false perception is not accusing you of trickery.
 
Pixel42 said:
We're trying to help you design a test protocol which will establish whether that really is happening; at the moment neither you nor we know whether it is or not, your perception that it does not being reliable (note: that would be true of me too, if I was the one perceiving the difference). Discussing ways in which the software you use to produce the recordings might be contributing to a false perception is not accusing you of trickery.
Click to expand...

I heard what happened. Then purchased a new laptop to see if it would happen again. If I am not allowed to prove this new-found capability of the spirits, and they refuse to play earth games, I'm rather stuck here.

Yes I have been accused of trickery, wire manipulating, sock puppeting etc etc
 
flaccon said:
I heard what happened. Then purchased a new laptop to see if it would happen again. If I am not allowed to prove this new-found capability of the spirits, and they refuse to play earth games, I'm rather stuck here.
Click to expand...
Who is saying you're not allowed? We're trying to help you do just that. Or rather we're trying to help you find out if you're right about the file changing. If you're right we'll accept it and help you apply to JREF or ASKE; if you're wrong you'll need to accept it and move on, having learned something about the fallibility of human perceptions.

ETA:
Yes I have been accused of trickery, wire manipulating, sock puppeting etc etc
Click to expand...
It's perfectly possible for you to be contributing to your experiences by touching wires etc without even realising it, so that's not an accusation of trickery. The sock puppet accusations have been dealt with by the mods.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to be out for most of the day. flaccon: as the discussion of how to test your claim and eliminate non-supernatural explanations proceeds, please try not to take every suggested possibility and countermeasure as a personal attack. This is just the scientific method in action.
 
Orphia Nay said:
I think people think that you, flaccon, tell scrappy (and others) what you think you've heard, and this prompts him to think he hears the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are far too many assumptions, mistakes and theories going on, and no matter how I try to correct them, it's pointless.

I liken it to this (without prejudice) If I enter into a room full of scots, or foreigners with broken English, and they all talking at the same time, at different volume. I will have no idea what they are saying. After a few days/weeks whatever, I will begin to get the hang of what they are saying.
 
flaccon said:
Yes, there are far too many assumptions, mistakes and theories going on, and no matter how I try to correct them, it's pointless.

I liken it to this (without prejudice) If I enter into a room full of scots, or foreigners with broken English, and they all talking at the same time, at different volume. I will have no idea what they are saying. After a few days/weeks whatever, I will begin to get the hang of what they are saying.
Click to expand...

Pardon me but that doesn't actually address Orphia Nay's point which you are replying to. The point was that lots of readers here assume that Scrappy only hears what you hear after you have prompted him with suggestions of what he might hear.

That's why everyone helping to design your new test is careful to avoid the possibility of one listener telling any other listener what words they might expect to hear.
 
flaccon said:
I heard what happened. Then purchased a new laptop to see if it would happen again. If I am not allowed to prove this new-found capability of the spirits, and they refuse to play earth games, I'm rather stuck here.

Yes I have been accused of trickery, wire manipulating, sock puppeting etc etc
Click to expand...

Where is the falsification ? ? ?
 
flaccon said:
Yes, there are far too many assumptions, mistakes and theories going on, and no matter how I try to correct them, it's pointless.

I liken it to this (without prejudice) If I enter into a room full of scots, or foreigners with broken English, and they all talking at the same time, at different volume. I will have no idea what they are saying. After a few days/weeks whatever, I will begin to get the hang of what they are saying.
Click to expand...

:) I understand. Please understand that this is a very interesting thread. Hence, it's drawing a lot of attention. Skeptics are very fond of the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Yours is an extraordinary claim. Thus, it takes a lot of effort to determine how your claim can be proven. We all need to narrow down a specific, testable claim, so that your claim can be proven, or disproven. We must always be aware of both possibilities.

Please don't be insulted by all the theorising and attention. If anything, you should be flattered that your claim is so interesting.

I'm not insulting you when I say I believe you tell your friends what you've heard in a recording. I'm trying to understand you better, dear lady.
 
flaccon said:
Yes, there are far too many assumptions, mistakes and theories going on, and no matter how I try to correct them, it's pointless.

I liken it to this (without prejudice) If I enter into a room full of scots, or foreigners with broken English, and they all talking at the same time, at different volume. I will have no idea what they are saying. After a few days/weeks whatever, I will begin to get the hang of what they are saying.
Click to expand...

Say you made 10 new recordings with complete sentences on each from the dead. Say you documented each with exactly what those messages were. Say a skeptic randomly mixed up those 10 files, and removed the identifying documentation while numbering each one. Say scrappy had no contact at all with you after you made these audio files. Say the skeptic played each file for scrappy, in random order. Say scrappy wrote down exactly what he heard on each file. Say the skeptic compared your transcripts to scrappy's transcripts.

Do you claim the two sets of transcripts would be identical?
 
Pixel42 said:
He's talking about after you''ve played the recording and the participants listen again. Someone has to collect the reports of what each of the three of you think you hear independently.

And it sounds like your chosen method of making the recordings is almost certainly going to produce artefacts, so there will be noises before the file is altered and those will also have to be independently noted.

I gave a step by step protocol on the previous page, please read it and let us know if you agree with it.
Click to expand...

I might be missing something here, but if a person generates a recording and sends me a copy of it. If I download and play that copy through this machine, and it reveals noise/interferences, which replicate onto the original recording that I have not touched, I'd feel that fair to call it "paranormal" whether voices are present or not.

Sorry I have not got to the post you are referring to yet, but I will find it and reply to it.
 
trustbutverify said:
Where is the falsification ? ? ?
Click to expand...

This is an important point. With the proposed new test, what will be the objective measure of whether or not anything has happened?

Is it to be the 3 people independently agree that they hear the same words?
Or is it to be that the recorded files are physically changed?

If it's the latter, how is that to be shown to have happened?

I ask because flaccon is very confident that the computer files are changed, but do we not already have an example of a file which had its MD5 hash "fingerprint" taken before being changed and the MD5 hash has not changed, indicating that the file has not actually changed at all?

I'm a little unclear on this point as I lost track of all the files variously exchanged and uploaded. I'd really appreciate it if someone could clear this up for me.
 
flaccon said:
I might be missing something here, but if a person generates a recording and sends me a copy of it. If I download and play that copy through this machine, and it reveals noise/interferences, which replicate onto the original recording that I have not touched, I'd feel that fair to call it "paranormal" whether voices are present or not.
Click to expand...

Yes. No question about it. If you can change a computer file remotely by doing something to a copy of that file, then that would be astounding.

<edit> On the other hand, if what you can actually do is tell someone "this bit of burbly noise sounds a bit like 'Robin' don't you think?" and get them to agree, then that is not quite the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom