Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
abaddon said:
Maybe. We have done this already in this thread.

But..

Such a protocol could be made to work regardless of the initial state of the file had we willing participants. So long as the initial state can be agreed by all participants before any "spirit" intervention, we should be all good.

1. scrappy generates a noisy file on his PC, plus an MD5, plus a waveform. Maybe 20-30 seconds long.

2. scrappy sends to a nominated individual who verifies file, MD5 and waveform

3. nominated individual uploads to a host and any interested parties can download and verify voiceless audio, MD5 and waveform.

At this point we would have scrappy and interested parties in agreement that there are no voices, MD5 and waveform agree.

4. Audio is sent to flacon.

5. flaccon verifies MD5 and waveform.

6. flaccon interprets and provides new MD5

7. Everyone else checks their copies for content and MD5 and waveform.

Or something like that.
Click to expand...
The trouble with any procedure like this is that, the more often you listen to a file with noise, the more likely you are to come up with an interpretation of voices. flaccon even admitted once that she had to listen many times before the messages could be understood.

My experience is that it never sounds like recognizable speech with the first playing, only upon multiple repetion. So the second audition of a file is not necessarily the same, in the listener's perception as the first. So if I hear a voice the second time, it does not necessarily mean anything changed, other than my perception, which is not in any way paranormal.

IXP
 
IXP said:
The trouble with any procedure like this is that, the more often you listen to a file with noise, the more likely you are to come up with an interpretation of voices. flaccon even admitted once that she had to listen many times before the messages could be understood.

My experience is that it never sounds like recognizable speech with the first playing, only upon multiple repetion. So the second audition of a file is not necessarily the same, in the listener's perception as the first. So if I hear a voice the second time, it does not necessarily mean anything changed, other than my perception, which is not in any way paranormal.

IXP
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The interpretation I posted to Jack only came after many repetitions at max volume on dolby 5.1 with a stonking boom box etc.

After a dozen repetitions, I started to imagine some words, and it went downhill from there.

Once you get some cue, even an imagined one, it becomes almost impossible to not hear it. Hence the point of the earlier examples from myself and others.
Hence the "fart in my duck" and "benny lava" stuff. Once you hear it that way your brain simply locks on like an exocet, and you become a passenger of your flawed perception.
 
The real problem with a procedure like that is that it requires scrappy and flaccon to do technical stuff. They ain't technical people. They will get a bit flustered, misunderstand what they are supposed to do and give up the moment anyone loses patience with them. Remember that flaccon is currently claiming she can't post anything.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I didn't say silence, I said generated noise, as opposed to the ambient noise from a mic.
Click to expand...

Been there done that, saw the dodges. Pardon my cynicism.

So long as we can agree whatever criteria, fine.

Except neither flacon nor scrappy will agree anything. This is just the next go round the merry-go-round of this nonsense claim.

Neither flaccon nor scrappy will accede to any real test.
 
Hokulele said:
They are an abomination unto the Lord.

Deut. 18:10-12.

I still wonder what flaccon's "great revelation" is...
Click to expand...

Dammit, you beat me to it! :mad:

As for the great revelation, I suspect that at some level flaccon realizes that it will sound quite banal to anyone other than herself so she's unwilling to enlighten us.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
While waiting for flaccon to explain the steps in the procedure, I'm going to guess that it involves turning up the gain of the built-in microphone.
Click to expand...
Sounds plausible.
I was hoping for something involving pendulums and reciting psalms or similar.
 
pakeha said:
Sounds plausible.
I was hoping for something involving pendulums and reciting psalms or similar.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it will involve something like that. Or at least it'll involve running some piece of software which leaves the audio settings all mixed up, although flaccon won't be aware of the details like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom