A ghostbox is a radio receiving device, a frequency scanner, and in some iterations, a sending unit. It no more converses with the "other side" than Edward or Van Praagh. What people claim to be ghost voices are stray radio broadcasts, and pattern-seeking among white noise. The credulous line up for this stuff; in fact the group you're touting sells this junk on their site.
This is what S.P.I.R.I.T. has to say about the “ghost boxes”.
“Perhaps the most controversial device in the paranormal field today is the “ghost Box” a device being hailed by some as a “telephone to the dead”. The device employs a randomly tuning RF receiver to pull in radio signals and supposedly the dead communicate back through it. The problem is, it is unshielded, allowing any RF signal of sufficient power to come through. With a million natural sources for the “voices” it is impossible to say what it is.
After research EVPs for many years, the evidence we have collected is very indicative of EVPs being an EMF in the audio spectrum. So, let’s assume for a minute the dead are trying to talk to us. If they talk to us via EMF, wouldn’t it make sense to talk back to them with EMF? So now all we need is an EMF transmitter, right? There are several ways to assembled an ITC device in your own home for very little monetary investment. I will showcase two such systems below.” (
http://www.spinvestigations.org/The_Spirit_Box.pdf)
(I have highlighted the relevant bits here. Rr)
So, S.P.I.R.I.T. is commenting here on a device that is
already being used by “ghosthunting” groups (et al.) and commenting on what
other’s have used it for (as a “telephone to the dead”). It is NOT a device of their own invention. S.P.I.R.I.T. then notes that
“The problem is, it is unshielded, allowing any RF signal of sufficient power to come through. With a million natural sources for the “voices” it is impossible to say what it is.” (indeed!)
S.P.I.R.I.T. has obviously investigated these devices and concludes that
“After research EVPs for many years, the evidence we have collected is very indicative of EVPs being an EMF in the audio spectrum”. In other words, NO GHOSTS.
However, given the such devices exist and that people DO use them, S.P.I.R.I.T. (graciously and informatively) describes common setups that are used - from the “Budget Telephone to the dead…” to the “High tech telephone to the dead…” (and describes where such equipment can be obtained and at what price) and I assume here most people, who are not rusted on believers, would note immediately the tongue firmly planted in the cheek!
In fact S.P.I.R.I.T. does NOT sell the equipment described at all! (so I guess you are typical of the UFO debunker crowd who also fail to actually examine the evidence before commenting).
I stated:
“HOW is it pseudoscience? Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.
And you reply with MORE unfounded assertion?
LOL IRONY, by merely making unfounded assertions is how Ghost hunters hunt ghosts how UFO researchers do research and how pseudoscience works!
Why don’t you just answer my question? I’ll tell you what my opinion is: You cannot answer the question because you realise that S.P.I.R.I.T. actually conducts itself in a scientific manner. No pseudoscience at all!
What? I'm quoting the source.
No you’re not, you merely making unfounded assertions about the “source”. Until you can provide the direct quote in context we are entitled to assume that you are simply misrepresenting “source” (and misleading us).
First, I'm out of my depth with physics but I'll show you that it's theoretical...
That the first link is dead, but it's about the universe being in the middle of a wormhole which has nothing about your case. Also the second link is from wiki which I thought was a typical UFO debunker site?
Oh, how strange, sorry about that…this link should work (
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/04/does-our-universe-live-inside-a-.html)
My “case” is that wormholes theoretically can exist. The whole article is based on that theory. That is why I showed it to you. To show that science takes the concept of wormholes seriously.
As for the Wiki link, I notice you don’t comment on the
content – and of course it is the content that refutes your contentions here.
Second It's Theoretical and would require a lot of energy. Or you can show me how a invisible wormhole to another dimension would only show up on the worm hole detector without adversial effecting the surrounding area.
After stating that
“First, I'm out of my depth with physics…” you are now an
expert on wormholes (!) and can make assumptions about such things as their energy requirements and that somehow an “invisible” wormhole cannot be detected without adverse environmental effects? Can you please show me the research that leads you to make these (so far)
unfounded assumptions?
I stated:
“Third, if energy passes through them, that could explain “ghosts” and other “paranormal” phenomena.”
First you need to prove evidence of ghosts and a hypothesis about how the exist then second you have to have a hypothesis that energy can stay around
In science one makes a hypothesis and then sets about testing the hypothesis by gathering evidence. The hypothesis here is that energy could be “leaking” through a wormhole, thus giving us the experience of “ghosts” (etc). The first step in testing the hypothesis is to see if energy CAN be detected. If it CAN, then hypotheses would need to be generated as to HOW such energy can provide the experience of “ghosts” (etc). If energy CANNOT be detected, then other hypotheses about our experience of “ghosts” will need to be generated. That’s the way science works.
And yet you haven't read the link. Talk about stating unfounded assertions! Tell me how detecting sound would equal wormhole?
Oh dear… the equipment is primarily set up to detect EMF sources. An audio interface is added to detect possible EVP. I think perhaps you should actually
read the articles and discover what the equipment is actually used
for (and what hypotheses are being tested) before commenting again?
I stated:
“I asked if you (anyone) could point to anywhere that S.P.I.R.I.T. was utilising pseudoscience. Clearly you have yet to do so.”
To your standard. Your standard for something to be science is set so low that almost anything that you agree with is science.
If you persist in making unfounded assertion I will simply reply every time that the mere stating of unfounded assertions does NOT make them true.
For example:
EVPs are voices from beyond? Science!
Show me where I have stated or implied that I have any opinion whatsoever about EVP?
Ghosts are real and are energy? SCIENCE!
Show me where I have stated or implied that I have any opinion whatsoever concerning the reality (or otherwise) of ghosts. I WILL state an opinion here though: I believe that it is
possible that “ghosts” are misperceived energy of some form. I DO NOT believe they are the spirits of the dead.
Ghosts are what we call things we can't explain with our current scientific understanding?
Possibly… “ghosts”… UFOs”… (and other paranormal phenomenological terminology)… all terms we use to describe things we seemingly cannot understand with our current scientific methodology.
Re: Nickell
Also that Secrets Of Human Levitation, talk about confirmation biased, What's your thoughts on the other guy in the video?
I think everyone who views this thread and reads either RR's post or my reply should watch this video just to know what RR would call evidence.
Did I or did I not state:
“…the point here is not whether levitation is real – that’s a different argument - it is the nature of Nickell’s “refutation” that is the issue…”?
Wait… Yes…yes I did state that. Hmmm…
“the nature of Nickell’s refutation” is the issue… perhaps you would care to actually address the
issue instead of making (sigh) unfounded assertions about what I might or might not believe concerning levitation?
The shear lack of information dealing with the should be a red flag that SPIRIT isn't much more then another ghost hunting group.
So a whole website full of detailed information is, according to you, a “
lack of information”? You people really are incredible (literally).
Since you stated that they do science while TAPS and Joe Nickell do pseudoscience. I would like to draw two tv ghost hunting shows that are on the same level as SPIRIT.. that's Paranormal state and Ghost adventures
Again with the
unfounded assertions? Must I remind you that the mere stating of unfounded assertions does NOT make them true?
S.P.I.R.I.T. actually LISTS its affiliations (
http://www.spinvestigations.org/affiliates.html). Just goes to show (again) how very little attention to the actual
evidence the debunkers pay.
