• 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.

I can get EVP's

mayday

Graduate Poster
mayday
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,702
I know because I have gotten them before.

If I was to get some and post them here, would anyone be interested, or would it be old news? I can't tell if some people here are saying they don't exist or if they are saying the voices on them are radio interference. I say this because I have actually had interaction take place with an EVP.
The best I can do in the way of something better than anecdotal evidence, but even then, people would insist I tampered with it, I'm afraid.
 
hotpatootie said:
I know because I have gotten them before.

If I was to get some and post them here, would anyone be interested, or would it be old news? I can't tell if some people here are saying they don't exist or if they are saying the voices on them are radio interference. I say this because I have actually had interaction take place with an EVP.
The best I can do in the way of something better than anecdotal evidence, but even then, people would insist I tampered with it, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Were you to quote them here, I personallly would put you in the same category as George.
 
hotpatootie said:
I know because I have gotten them before.

If I was to get some and post them here, would anyone be interested, or would it be old news? I can't tell if some people here are saying they don't exist or if they are saying the voices on them are radio interference. I say this because I have actually had interaction take place with an EVP.
The best I can do in the way of something better than anecdotal evidence, but even then, people would insist I tampered with it, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Most people here will give you a fair shake; this is assuming you are not a troll.

I would certainly read Duck's link.
 
hotpatootie said:
If I was to get some and post them here, would anyone be interested, or would it be old news?
Click to expand...

You also said that you have two photographs with "very obvious apparitions of people", which obviously prove to you that ghosts exist.

Upon asking you to post those pictures, you said "I don't have a scanner".

*yawn*
 
hotpatootie said:
I know because I have gotten them before.

If I was to get some and post them here, would anyone be interested, or would it be old news? I can't tell if some people here are saying they don't exist or if they are saying the voices on them are radio interference. I say this because I have actually had interaction take place with an EVP.
The best I can do in the way of something better than anecdotal evidence, but even then, people would insist I tampered with it, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

If you feel you have reliable evidence of the supernatural or paranormal to offer, then get into the MDC thread and file an application, or ask here for advice on protocols and feasibility. Otherwise this thread follows the same unproductive pattern as your others:

1. Offer a ghost video, ghost photo, woo theory, etc. for examination.
2. Challenge people to "debunk it", reversing the burden of proof.
3. Use inability to prove something ISN'T paranormal as a platform to advance various woo ideas, such as "overlapping dimensions" and make cryptic comments such as "there is more to this world than we know", etc.
 
Last edited:
hotpatootie,

I used to be the EVP "specialist" for a paranormal team. It was while on that team I would become a skeptic. ;)

For the EVPs to have any merit at all, you need to produce a detailed work flow of how they were recorded, environment factors, and what modifications were made to the data, with copies of the original and modified file. That would just be assurance that the recording was not tampered with. Even then, it is not proof of paranormal phenomena. It can be any numbers of causes more likely than unearthly voices. :)
 
hotpatootie:

Could you explain the process in which you are getting the recordings you propose? How are you determining what is being said by the recorded voices? Would you be willing to try an experiment in which you and others on the forum try to write a transcript of what is being said with multiple people providing their interpretations seperately and privately? If multiple people heard the same message it might indicate something more noteworthy than if you simply provide an audio file along with your interpretation of the message. If multiple people were to come up with different transcripts from the same audio file would it help you to better realize these random sounds are more in the ear of the beholder rather than actual attempts at communication?

Would anyone else be willing to participate in this to better prove our point?
 
Last edited:
This is a quotation from EVP pioneer Konstantin Raudive's book Breakthrough:

"The voice entities speak very rapidly, in a mixture of languages, sometimes as many as five or six in one sentence."
"They speak in a definite rhythm, which seems forced on them."
"The rhythmic mode imposes a shortened, telegram-style phrase or sentence."
Probably because of this, "… grammatical rules are frequently abandoned and neologisms abound." :confused:

In other words, EVP is the aural equivalent of the Rorschach test. If the hearer is allowed to pick 'n mix different languages, ignore grammatical rules and allow the entities to make up words as they go along, it would be astounding if "messages" didn't turn up! :)
 
Alice Shortcake said:
This is a quotation from EVP pioneer Konstantin Raudive's book Breakthrough:

"The voice entities speak very rapidly, in a mixture of languages, sometimes as many as five or six in one sentence."
"They speak in a definite rhythm, which seems forced on them."
"The rhythmic mode imposes a shortened, telegram-style phrase or sentence."
Probably because of this, "… grammatical rules are frequently abandoned and neologisms abound." :confused:

In other words, EVP is the aural equivalent of the Rorschach test. If the hearer is allowed to pick 'n mix different languages, ignore grammatical rules and allow the entities to make up words as they go along, it would be astounding if "messages" didn't turn up! :)
Click to expand...

In the EVP article link I gave there's an interesting study in which core tones of acoustic speech were stripped from the timbre of the recording leaving only tones and when given no context, people didn't hear anything but noise, but when told they were listening for a sentence (and not told what that sentence is) they heard speech. In other words, the brain can fill in to hear things that may or may not be there.
 
kosai said:
hotpatootie:

Could you explain the process in which you are getting the recordings you propose? How are you determining what is being said by the recorded voices? Would you be willing to try an experiment in which you and others on the forum try to write a transcript of what is being said with multiple people providing their interpretations seperately and privately? If multiple people heard the same message it might indicate something more noteworthy than if you simply provide an audio file along with your interpretation of the message. If multiple people were to come up with different transcripts from the same audio file would it help you to better realize these random sounds are more in the ear of the beholder rather than actual attempts at communication?

Would anyone else be willing to participate in this to better prove our point?
Click to expand...

Good suggestion. However a consensus agreement of a sounds interpretation would not necessarily warrant any significant degree of noteworthiness. Without an objective application of strict controls on the recording environment to rule out natural causes, fraud and human error, a recording of (for example) a male voice clearly heard saying "OK" might be the next door neighbor, a passerby, a prankster, a radio transmission, etc. and not anything remotely supernatural.
 
Ducky said:
In the EVP article link I gave there's an interesting study in which core tones of acoustic speech were stripped from the timbre of the recording leaving only tones and when given no context, people didn't hear anything but noise, but when told they were listening for a sentence (and not told what that sentence is) they heard speech. In other words, the brain can fill in to hear things that may or may not be there.
Click to expand...

Yeah this kind of contextual biasing is rampant throughout paranormal investigations.

For example, three people are investigating a house, and hear a creak from the attic. If person one was from animal control looking for pests, they might think it is very probably a squirrel. If person two were doing a structural analysis, they might think it was the house settling. And if person three was doing a paranormal investigation, they tend to assume it is an 'entity'.
 
CLD said:
Good suggestion. However a consensus agreement of a sounds interpretation would not necessarily warrant any significant degree of noteworthiness. Without an objective application of strict controls on the recording environment to rule out natural causes, fraud and human error, a recording of (for example) a male voice clearly heard saying "OK" might be the next door neighbor, a passerby, a prankster, a radio transmission, etc. and not anything remotely supernatural.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the test would do nothing to *prove* anything to anyone here, the original poster seems to have made multiple posts around the forum suggesting we are being too critical rather than doing experimentation and giving the benefit of the doubt to "evidence" which is being presented. If this is a "conversation" rather than random sounds the recording should be something multiple people could agree makes sense as a conversation (or some people would hear and point out a more random nature to the words.) Of course none of this would rule out a hoax however the original poster has in a few other threads said they have been accused of trickery in the past when they claim to have done nothing of the sort. If it is a fraud and the results did happen to be of any note of course more elaborate measures would have to be taken to eliminate the other possible causes. It's just in fun as a forum post and to hopefully illustrate the idea better to those who might not have thought of good ways to critically think about such things rather than a serious inquiry.
 
Did anybody else follow this link from the wikipedia EVP page?
http://aaevp.com/examples.htm

Take a look at their examples of faces, its almost sad how desperatly these people want to believe. They manipulate a blank wall to bring out a face.

As for EVP's or any other evidence you have it needs to be presented in an orderly manor with full disclosure of any work done to it, chain of custody, ect. Otherwise you are on your own pal.
 
Biscuit said:
Did anybody else follow this link from the wikipedia EVP page?
http://aaevp.com/examples.htm

Take a look at their examples of faces, its almost sad how desperatly these people want to believe. They manipulate a blank wall to bring out a face.

As for EVP's or any other evidence you have it needs to be presented in an orderly manor with full disclosure of any work done to it, chain of custody, ect. Otherwise you are on your own pal.
Click to expand...

I think you mean the SkepticWiki page (unless that is also on the wikipedia page) But the article I linked to is not wikipedia proper, though it does run on the same software.
 
EVP always reminds me of:

http://www.reversespeech.com/home.htm

and also...

http://victorthebudgie.com/

These can be so easily dismissed by closing your eyes while listenng to the recordings, then writing down your prediction of what was said, then watching what the author claims is said. I came up with very few matches doing this. For anyone who hasn't seen these sites they are pretty funny (in the same sad way.)


It's funny too that the "Victor" site sets up the following guidelines to prohibit you from doing the above... They are as follows:

To understand what he is saying try the following:

1. First read the words I have provided with the recording.

2. Once you understand what he is communicating, then play the recording.

3. The words will also pop up in the QuckTime5 player so you can follow them better.

4. Trust the words that I provide with the recording to be more than 95% accurate. At first you may think he is saying something different. Therefore, I will assure you again, I have spent hundred of hours anayzing these recordings and know them to be highly accurate.

5. Don't question the translation as you are listening to it. If you question the translation, you will not be able to concentrate and will most likely miss most of it.

6. Thousands of people now understand Victor word for word as I do. So instead of questioning it, make yourself understand small sections at a time. Then listen to it again until you understand more.

7. Eventually you should be able to pick up most of what he is saying as I have translated it. Most people find they have to listen to each recording 5-20 times before they understand it all.

8. Once you have a good grasp on what he is saying, play the second file and see if you can understand it without the words.
 
Last edited:
Anyone have a link to Wiseman's presentation on backward masking from TAM 4?
 
wahrheit said:
Followed your link. I think you can strike the word "almost" in your above sentence.
Click to expand...

These people really are beyond help - "One person even found a decent face in well illuminated piece of sandpaper." :jaw-dropp

Pitiful. And don't get me started on the leprechauns lurking in grainy video images. :eye-poppi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom