• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

LOU GENTILE, EVP Applicant

petre

Muse
P
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
887
A rare chance indeed, the opportunity to examine and comment on an application before Kramer sends an official reply!

Not only that, but the applicant seems to be acutely aware of the scrutiny under which a parnormal claim is examined and has provided a very detailed protocol.

Even given the opportunity to freely examine his recorders, I would expect that Kramer would request that the recorders be freshly purchased (as a joint first step of the test) or provided by an independant third party.

Let me now wish the applicant good luck, and hope that a final protocol can be reached quickly...before I put my cynical hat on.

In the end, I suspect Kramer will have to insist on some point (perhaps the very one I suggested above) and the discussion will degenerate from there.
 
I question who will interpret what will be considered a sucessful response?

Could it be played out the way he described, recording what the responces are, and then after the whole test is over an independant third party listen for responses on indicated places on the tape (some false, some where there should be one). This third person should never be in contact with the applicant, and only when both parties agree on what the response is should it be considered sucessful. This would prevent the applicant from forming words from independent random sounds, and influencing the third party by telling them what they should hear.
 
Last edited:
CptColumbo said:
I question who will interpret what will be considered a sucessful response?

Could it be played out the way he described, recording what the responces are, and then after the whole test is over an independant third party listen for responses on indicated places on the tape (some false, some where there should be one). This third person should never be in contact with the applicant, and only when both parties agree on what the response is should it be considered sucessful. This would prevent the applicant from forming words from independent random sounds, and influencing the third party by telling them what they should hear.
Click to expand...

He seemed to be receptive to (even anticpating) the idea of an objective third party to judge whether or not there were English responses.

I find the use of digital recording interesting, most claimants use less reliable media like magnetic tape and chemical photo to capture evidence of (spirits?).

He's not even claiming that the responses will 'be correct' or even 'make sense' (and indeed, there's not any specific need for that to demonstrate something paranormal). I keep picturing a 'hit':

"Sprit, what is 2 + 2?"

(faint voice)"...green..."

Perhaps only idiots can communicate from the afterlife? :)
 
"I question who will interpret what will be considered a sucessful response?" --- CptColumbo

There is a Challenge rule that says there needs to be a demonstration which does not require any "judging" (aka ' interpretation ').
 
webfusion said:
"I question who will interpret what will be considered a sucessful response?" --- CptColumbo

There is a Challenge rule that says there needs to be a demonstration which does not require any "judging" (aka ' interpretation ').
Click to expand...

So this could be rejected, unless an agreement could be made on what exactly is a proper response?
 
CptColumbo said:
So this could be rejected, unless an agreement could be made on what exactly is a proper response?
Click to expand...

Why can't KRAMER just go straight to asking for affidavits so that the guy can just disappear and we can all forget that this ever happened?
 
strathmeyer said:
Why can't KRAMER just go straight to asking for affidavits so that the guy can just disappear and we can all forget that this ever happened?
Click to expand...

I just think it would be a shame to not have an EVP tested. Hopefully, they can come up with a protocol that will allow them to remove as much subjectivity as possible.
 
strathmeyer said:
Why can't KRAMER just go straight to asking for affidavits so that the guy can just disappear and we can all forget that this ever happened?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing he's prepared for that. If you look at the website for his radio show www [dot] lougentile [dot] com you can see photos of his original application being notarized. Given the testimonials quoted on the website I'm sure he could find a few fans to sign affidavits.

The crunch question will be "how will the success of the test be judged".
 
It may be possible to hold any test of this in a "quiet room", one that is shielded from outside EM signals. That should at least eliminate the possibility of accidental signals being picked up on the recorder.

It would also need to be carefully set up in order to avoid the possibility of the applicant whispering the answers under his breath. Perhaps fitting him with a throat microphone to pick up everything he says may suffice.

The recorder should also be checked for any previous recordings that could "leak" into the recordings done during the tests. If it is a digital recorder, this could be done by formatting the media several times before and in between the tests.
 
CptColumbo said:
...after the whole test is over an independant third party listen for responses on indicated places on the tape (some false, some where there should be one). This third person should never be in contact with the applicant, and only when both parties agree on what the response is should it be considered sucessful. This would prevent the applicant from forming words from independent random sounds, and influencing the third party by telling them what they should hear.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. And I'd also stipulate that, if possible, the person listening to the "answers" not be told what the question is or that there even /was/ a question. That way, the pattern-seeky nature of the listener can at least be damped down a bit.

By the way, and this is a total segue, I found the following interesting statement in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon that I wanted to share with everyone:
"I don't like the word 'addict' because it has terrible connotations," Root says one day, as they are sunning themselves on the afterdeck. "Instead of slapping a label on you, the Germans would describe you as 'Morphiumsuechtig'. The verb suchen means to seek. So that might be translated, loosely, as 'morphium seeky' or even more loosely as 'morphium seeking'. I prefer 'seeky' because it means that you have an inclination to seek morphium."
Click to expand...
It struck me that this also describes humans' pattern-seeking nature pretty well -- that we are pattern-seeky, because it's a trait that helps us learn absurdly quickly and therefore is an excellent survival trait. Just thought I'd throw that in there. : )

-- Jackalgirl
 
vbloke said:
It may be possible to hold any test of this in a "quiet room", one that is shielded from outside EM signals. That should at least eliminate the possibility of accidental signals being picked up on the recorder.

It would also need to be carefully set up in order to avoid the possibility of the applicant whispering the answers under his breath. Perhaps fitting him with a throat microphone to pick up everything he says may suffice.

The recorder should also be checked for any previous recordings that could "leak" into the recordings done during the tests. If it is a digital recorder, this could be done by formatting the media several times before and in between the tests.
Click to expand...
In this context, it's interesting that he stipulates that "The list of questions will be compiled and agreed upon in advance by both parties." Wouldn't this leave the possibility open that he simply prepared the answers in advance of the session and somehow arranged for them to get them picked up on the recorder?
 
From the application:

Due to the fact that the intelligence of the entities is unknown, these question's cannot include complex scientific or mathematical subjects
Click to expand...

I wonder if this means you can't ask the entities anything that Lou himself doesn't know about?
 
You can't preset the questions either, as it gives an opportunity to prerecord answers.
I was at a session of attempted EVP recording last year. What is very telling is the attitude of the listeners- some imagine they hear words where others hear only noise, but if one person says he heard "cheese" and the tape is replayed, others will agree it does sound a bit like "cheese." By the fourth playing, some people will tell you the kind of cheese.
This is not cheating. It's just that pareidolia works for sound as well as sight. People are very, very good at extracting meaning from noise- and if it isn't there, they imagine it.
 
I would be anxious to see this tested. I agree that people find patterns where there are none and that EVPs are most likely nonsense but....

They seem like something that lend themselves to being definitivly tested, more so than most paranormal claims, and dangit they do sound like voices sometimes.
 
Maybe it could be done like this:

Both parties agree upon 20 questions. Each question will have a distinct answer and none of the answers will be identical to the other answers. He suggested simple addition problems and I think this would be good.

Someone (call him the code man) will prepare (ahead of time) a code word for each question and record this on a sheet. So for example he would record that the question 1+1 will be referred to as "dog".

The code man will be sent out of the room each time a recording is made. 20 separate recordings are made of the "answers", each of them on a separate piece of media (cassette or whatever, I’m not an audio guy). After each "answer" is recorded, the code man will enter the room, remove the media from the recorder and leave the room with it. In a separate room he will write the code word on the media.

After the 20 answers have been recorded they will be given back to the claimant and he will listen to them and determine which question was asked to get the recording he is listening too. He will then write the question he thinks was asked on the media. When this is finished the code word and question written on each media will be compared against the master list.

Get enough of them right and he wins the money.

LLH
 
Using my previous example, but this time:

Instead of asking an addition question, the claimant could be blind folded and then handed a sign with a number written on it. He asks the "spirits" to say the number on the sign.

This would remove the possibility of the claimant making some kind of noise during the recording of the "answer" to identify it later.

LLH
 
Good LLH. This eliminates the need to check Lou for hidden speakers, or call the recorder manufacturer, or have a judge listen to the tape to discern answers. Lou can be the judge the recordings himself. If he worried that the spirits can't read, then stick to questions about the contents of a box that Lou can't see, such as "how many carnations are in the box", and "what color are they".
 
I would also hope to see the protocol stipulate that multiple recording devices be used. Let him use his old trusty device, but also use a brand new one too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom