Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
flaccon said:
They don't speak on request, they speak in unison. When I press "play" it is never in the middle of a conversation. It is highly likely they can choose not to alter files. They do join in conversation about JREF, on recordings dating back to 2012, and they do NOT alter the clearest of files when I replay them.

They only alter old files that I've have dismissed as useless.
Click to expand...

Okay this is an example of a goalpost shift. The claim has already been changed. Can you please state exactly what the spirits can do in as much detail as possible otherwise we'll just go on a wild goose chase?
 
flaccon said:
I asked 9 months ago do they begin to speak when I press play. My Father used to say "Tracey.." before every sentence (sometimes still does) hence how I follow his tone through the other voices.

I'd call it an educated guess considering they do not alter certain files, but do alter the useless files. I'm not weaving or story-telling. I am just saying it as I see it.
Click to expand...
For crying out loud.


chillzero said:
Does this mean that no, you never asked them? You never made an attempt to check that the noises were from spirits or your equipment?
Click to expand...
Not answered.


chillzero said:
Does this mean that you hear them, and know when a conversation is starting? Or that when you listen, you hear things from the start? How do you know, if so, that you did not miss other sentences? Particularly if they are not responding to your request as claimed above?
Click to expand...
Vaguely answered - not clearly, and with a story.


chillzero said:
This is not even an assertion - it's an assumption. How have you checked this assumption? Don't you think that would be important?
Click to expand...
Not answered.


chillzero said:
flaccon said:
They only alter old files that I've have dismissed as useless.
Click to expand...
That's different. Why all the talk about new files, then?
Click to expand...
Not answered - and this is an important one.


chillzero said:
.... if you want to be clear enough for us to follow.
Click to expand...
:boggled:
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Also, so far as I can tell, jsfisher did not create an MD5 hash of the file before sending it to flaccon, so all we know for sure is that the original file and the copy have identical MD5 hashes now.

Since flaccon's claim was that spirit intervention could change both her copy and the original we haven't disproven that.
Click to expand...

I was mistaken.

jsfisher did indeed make an MD5 hash for the files emailed to flaccon. So we can indeed be absolutely confident that the two versions of VolumeNormInt.wav are not only identical, they are also unchanged from the original.

The file did not change.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I was mistaken.

jsfisher did indeed make an MD5 hash for the files emailed to flaccon. So we can indeed be absolutely confident that the two versions of VolumeNormInt.wav are not only identical, they are also unchanged from the original.

The file did not change.
Click to expand...

Indicating at that time the spirits did nothing to that file - and thereby proving paredolia.
 
Public Service Announcement

OK I did the dirty deed, and downloaded the YouCam thing.

For starters, it is NOT free.

Signing up for the download requires you to enter your name and email address. I am now John Doe/somebody@someplace.com.

That seemed acceptable, so I got redirected to a download at download.com. This was a 250KB executable. This installer then tried to install the following software:
Webcake toolbar
MyPCBackup
Selection Links
DefaultTab Search Bar
Mixi.DJ toolbar

Naturally these were all defaulted to "Agree" so that the unwary would install them.. The first four received a polite decline response from me. The last required required going into "Custom Installation (Advanced Users)" and making sure none of the components were ticked.

A little shoddy, I thought, surely now we get to the actual app. Nope. What happened next was yet another executable had to be downloaded, 570KB this time This turns out to be a downloader for another installer 172MB this time. At last, this is the meat.

Complete the download, run it for a standard install experience. At last, run YouCam for the first time. The only annoyance here was was the harassment seeking your personal details, which I simply skipped. And plugs for their other products.

First attempt, record a 20 second silent wmv. Max out the audio, replay and bingo, instant artefacts. The levels are very low and would you believe it I instinctively lifted one of the speakers to my ear LOL. Health warning: with your audio maxed out and a speaker to your ear, make sure Skype is switched off. I can still here the bells.

ETA: After you install, you discover the trial is only 15 days
 
Last edited:
Yes it does appear that there has been a misunderstanding about what an MD5 hash is.

flaccon: do you now understand that it's a way of generating a checksum for a file?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checksum

It's usually used to check that a file hasn't been corrupted during transmission, i.e. to check that a file on computer A which is copied to computer B isn't damaged in the process. If the checksum generated for the copy is the same as the checksum generated for the original file then the file has been copied correctly; if it's different then the file has changed.

That makes it ideal for our purposes, as it means we don't need to rely on subjective judgement: if the checksum changes then the file has changed, no matter how many people say they can't hear the difference you say you hear; if the checksum doesn't change then the file hasn't changed, no matter how many people think they can hear a difference.

So the person who produces the file needs to generate the checksum before they send you a copy and make a note of it. You need to generate a checksum when you receive the file to check it is still identical. Then after you play the file and think you hear something new, you need to generate a checksum again to see if the file has really changed, and the person who created the file needs to generate a checksum for the original again to see if that has changed to match.
 
Public Service Announcement

Nice piece of work, John Doe!

I see the current version of Youcam is v5 launched in March. I think flaccon has been a user since at least February and probably has the previous version. The change from version to version of this kind of software might include different codecs and algorithms to increase compression or improve media quality.

Do you think this is the case and do you think the current version will work as well at producing these artefacts which the spirits like so much? You say they are at a low level in v5
 
But the magical spirits, who can't do much of anything that can actually be tested objectively, can certainly change a file without changing its MD5 hash or, indeed, any of the bits that make up the file.

That is my prediction for flaccon's interpretation of the result of this test, if it is ever performed.

IXP
 
Last edited:
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.

Sorry I have not got to the post you are referring to yet, but I will find it and reply to it.
Click to expand...

Forgive me, everyone, if I've missed a similar suggestion, but I'm wondering if a test could be constructed around the time a file was altered.

In other words, a recording is sent to flaccon from someone (Person A) who can tell when files are altered. Flaccon and Person A are isolated from each other.

Person A listens to the recording again once every ten minutes for an hour. At a random time during that hour, flaccon listens to the recording. Person A should be able to say when the recording is altered, or in other words, identify at what time flaccon listened to it.

Needless to say, an open test could be done first, to show that the phenomen occurs when Person A can see and hear flaccon listening to the recording.

This would be dependent on a claim that the alteration occurs at approximately the same time, within a minute or two, of when flaccon listens to the file.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
So the person who produces the file needs to generate the checksum before they send you a copy and make a note of it. You need to generate a checksum when you receive the file to check it is still identical. Then after you play the file and think you hear something new, you need to generate a checksum again to see if the file has really changed, and the person who created the file needs to generate a checksum for the original again to see if that has changed to match.
Click to expand...

There is an excellent preliminary test. Lets do it. Flaccon, what do you say?

How can Flaccon generate the checksum?
 
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...
I guess I should correct my assertion to say that an American who knows only a few words of Mandarin, might interpret it to say Thank you.

IXP
 
tuxcat said:
Okay this is an example of a goalpost shift. The claim has already been changed. Can you please state exactly what the spirits can do in as much detail as possible otherwise we'll just go on a wild goose chase?
Click to expand...

Please! That is so page two! Get with the times. ☻
 
Pup said:
Forgive me, everyone, if I've missed a similar suggestion, but I'm wondering if a test could be constructed around the time a file was altered.
Click to expand...

The result of the trial with jsfisher's files was that no files were altered. We have yet to see any evidence that any file has been altered. Once we can find that any alteration has happened I think your idea would be great for the next step.

Do you have any ideas about how we could help the spirits to alter a file?
 
IXP said:
But the magical spirits, who can't do much of anything that can actually be tested objectively, can certainly change a file without changing its MD5 hash or, indeed, any of the bits that make up the file.

That is my prediction for flaccon's interpretation of the result of this test, if it is ever performed.
Click to expand...


I was leaning more toward the idea that the spirits can change the copied file, the original file, the MD5 hash of the original file, any digital/analog records of the original hash, and the memories of anyone who ever saw the original hash. You know, kinda like how god works for young earth creationists.

Then again, all that mucking with digital data sounds suspiciously like earth games, and we know they don't play those.
 
Alderbank said:
Public Service Announcement

Nice piece of work, John Doe!

I see the current version of Youcam is v5 launched in March. I think flaccon has been a user since at least February and probably has the previous version. The change from version to version of this kind of software might include different codecs and algorithms to increase compression or improve media quality.
Click to expand...
Could well be the case, has flaccon posted her version number before?
Also, perhaps her version was bundled on her laptop, so that's why she thinks it's free?
Alderbank said:
Do you think this is the case and do you think the current version will work as well at producing these artefacts which the spirits like so much? You say they are at a low level in v5
Click to expand...
Literally, I did one test straight out of the box just to see what happened, so what I got is a result of whatever the defaults settings are. I will try and get back at it later and see what's under the hood.
 
Just a thought:

The real claim behind all this is that spirits are talking freely on Tracey’s computer, through compression artifacts.

Why not go the actual jref route and create a video of Tracey asking her questions and receiving clear answers? Obviously this would be picked up by an external mic?!?

From what I’ve read, a video of the applicant performing their claim is required in the application process anyway. This would be a good test and it would move things along.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
There is an excellent preliminary test. Lets do it. Flaccon, what do you say?

How can Flaccon generate the checksum?
Click to expand...

She could do what I just did and Google "MD5 checksum generator".

I downloaded this one: http://www.georgejopling.co.uk/md5check/md5check.html

I used that to generate an MD5 checksum from the file "VolumeNormInt post Spirits.wav" which I downloaded from Alderbank's box.com account, and compared it to the MD5 checksum which jsfisher posted on 28th June in post #2279 of this thread (cunningly using invisible text - click and drag your mouse across it to reveal the text).

So that means that I was comparing the MD5 hashes of a file which was about to be sent to flaccon and a copy of that file forwarded by flaccon after she had listened to it and believed it had been altered by spirits because of the things she thought she heard in it.

The MD5 for both files is identical: 3b1071dc64cb32957d892675a34b58f4



TL/DR version: The proposed experiment has already been done. Result - no change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom