• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

EVPs

Free episodes:

Raevenskye said:
that's just awesome! of course, the "tech talk" is over my head, but I love to read it anyway! i'm so impressed with everyone!

auntigrav: are you saying that you believe "spirit voices" are moving at high rates of speed, and that's why they sound distorted?

I'll reply to this one because Raevenskye seems to be the most interested and the least ego-happy about how to answer my semi-facetious post.

The RF design guys take the position that you have to run screaming from what I said about the frequencies because you would have to. I don't blame them. The post was simply to get people to think outside of the spectral box for a bit. The DVR (digital voice recorders) are square wave based sampling devices at heart. A square wave is a combination of frequencies (the first harmonic plus all the odd harmonics). If you are recording something that wasn't heard by your ears, then chances are, it is somehow tied to the superaudio frequencies that are being picked up by a DVR. (like heterodyning an IF circuit in a receiver) If your antenna and amplifier are designed to pick up audio frequencies, then they aren't going to find the ghosts (droids?)you are looking for. My exaggeration into (nonexistent)super-Planck range is a personal fantasy and a suspicion related to much of the UFO discussions, especially the 'static electricity' feeling of the people in Chicago recently. We don't yet know enough about Cassimir forces to say what exists beyond our own electromagnetic frequencies and fields, measured by electromagnetic based instruments, filtered by the prejudices we inevitably have toward our standard ideas of institutional reality.
If you want to pick up audio frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum, simply find a guitar and amp. My guitar picks up the prf of my VCR's remote control.
If these ghosts or spirits were in the audio ranges, every Tom, Dick, and Oilcan Harry would have been hearing voices at every rock concert.
If I were a spirit, and I had the entire spectrum to dwell in, I'm pretty sure it would have to be a range where enough energy exists to keep my photons coherent against a very noisy cosmic background. Everything on our world is based on the useful spectrum of our sun and the interactions with the (non-dark) matter and photons which make up our world. Once we acknowledge dark energy and dark matter, we should also acknowledge that there could be other forms of existence which are simply harmonics of this one. Perhaps what we see and hear as paranormal are simply energy-based coherences which interact only at ultra-high frequencies and survive by 'surfing' cosmic waves, or as interference patterns on cosmic rays. When the conditions are just right, we pick them up in the ranges of things we use only as long as they create standing wave reflections or are absorbed by air or moisture.
If you are familiar with phased-array radar systems, think about this: the direction of the beam is controlled simply by the phase difference between each transmitter in the array. What if the energy in a high frequency beam somehow managed to form a self-replicating loop? Then several loops? A pattern? A double helix? Simply energy, feeding on the background, traveling forever until absorbed by another entity. With an infinite universe to play in, and almost an infinite array of sources of energy, what are the chances that only mass-based patterns become self-replicating? Evolution in an energy being would have to tend toward higher and higher frequencies to reach higher levels of complexity, just as computers tend toward higher frequencies to gain switching ability. Imagine a star that is actually a living being..(oh, wait, Neil Gaiman already took care of that...;-)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, email notification just popped up.

AG
P.S. Auntiegrav is only a 'she' in name because "antigrav" was already taken. Yes, I do like to stir the pot, but I have my own particular view of physics and the universe, so it isn't just to be a prick. As crazy as some of my comments may sound to the orthodox, they are sometimes based on research I have done or science which is not well published or just a 'feel' for living and nonliving systems and machines that I have built, worked with, or operated.
 
Tommy Allison said:
I built a plasma cannon this weekend. Unfortunately, it will do nothing to capture a ghost, but would be an excellent conversation piece in my living room.

Before anyone asks if it works, it lights up, and I used these plasma lightbulbs which make it nifty, but as for it being a true cannon, no. It's just a prop.

I'll let everyone know if ghosts try to speak to me through it.

You might like to visit these guys:

resonanceresearch.com - This website is for sale! - resonanceresearch Resources and Information.
or
http://www.thegeekgroup.org
a friend of mine works with them a lot and helped develop the midi Tesla coil controller. "Mario brothers tesla coil" it's pretty impressive. here's the link:

VX5V_9s0Gfw
 
Struck a nerve, did I? Several, apparently. Sorry about that.

My pride wishes me to argue the point that what you suggest is not so much thinking outside the box , but more impractical and frought with assumptions. But I'm not a huge fan of typing, and well, lazy to boot. And I'm not a physicist, just a lowly engineer.

But one thing that I will say...remember that EVP's were picked up on analog tape recorders before DVR's, and that's not a sampling system. More than that, there's likely some amount of anti-aliasing filtering in a DVR (or at least of the design is worth anything - I admit, an assumption). And even more, it's been noted that EVP's have greater occurences when an external mic is used. That all seems rather glaring to me.

Please don't insinuate that I'm incapable of "thinking outside the box". I just prefer to look at evidence first and speculation second.
 
SnakeOil said:
Struck a nerve, did I? Several, apparently. Sorry about that.
But one thing that I will say...remember that EVP's were picked up on analog tape recorders before DVR's, and that's not a sampling system. More than that, there's likely some amount of anti-aliasing filtering in a DVR (or at least of the design is worth anything - I admit, an assumption). And even more, it's been noted that EVP's have greater occurences when an external mic is used. That all seems rather glaring to me.

Please don't insinuate that I'm incapable of "thinking outside the box". I just prefer to look at evidence first and speculation second.

Not really. I just tried to elaborate too much. Bad habit. ;-)

Remember, analog machines use a high frequency bias signal when recording to reduce the head gap size/increase the dynamic response of the system. Plenty of opportunity for heterodyning a higher freq signal on top of the audio even there.

Anti-aliasing filters usually work on a percentage/cost basis, they aren't necessarily good cliff-dwelling cutoffs, and attaching a microphone to the EVP box may only add a better reference ground for the actual signal to be picked up by the intermediate electronics inside the recorder (possibly even resonate with the filter electronics). This especially if the unit is poorly shielded from EM interference, such that slot antenna theory comes into play for penetration of a limited Faraday cage.

Didn't mean to insinuate you personally. Just speaking in general terms of boxed thinking. No offense intended, sorry if it came out that way. Chalk it up to my ADD/stupidity/punctuation/narcolepsy/hypochondria/brain damage, etc....
 
Boy, I just re-read the begining of you post Auntie, and I've gotta say that's it's just completely offensive. Why would you possibly start that way when I said in a previous post that I didn't want to come off like a know-it-all dickhead? Did you hear something just completely different? If you heard ego at work, you were dead wrong. And it wasn't the mention of any frequencies that made me want to go run screaming, but the cavalier attitude you take towards demodulating RF without actually defining any kind of modulation scheme. You just said "somehow". Then there was the assumption that some non-corporeal entity might have the ability to modulate a voice to something other than audio frequencies without (as far as I know) data point #1. I'm astonished!

Look, if it's the "smartest guy on the interwebs" title you want, you can have it with my blessing. As I said, I'm not a physicist. If we stack my education against yours, I likely don't have a chance. And you know what else? I couldn't care less. But I don't believe your true motive for that post was to get people to think outside the box, as you say.
 
auntiegrav said:
SnakeOil said:
Struck a nerve, did I? Several, apparently. Sorry about that.
But one thing that I will say...remember that EVP's were picked up on analog tape recorders before DVR's, and that's not a sampling system. More than that, there's likely some amount of anti-aliasing filtering in a DVR (or at least of the design is worth anything - I admit, an assumption). And even more, it's been noted that EVP's have greater occurences when an external mic is used. That all seems rather glaring to me.

Please don't insinuate that I'm incapable of "thinking outside the box". I just prefer to look at evidence first and speculation second.

Not really. I just tried to elaborate too much. Bad habit. ;-)

Remember, analog machines use a high frequency bias signal when recording to reduce the head gap size/increase the dynamic response of the system. Plenty of opportunity for heterodyning a higher freq signal on top of the audio even there.

Anti-aliasing filters usually work on a percentage/cost basis, they aren't necessarily good cliff-dwelling cutoffs, and attaching a microphone to the EVP box may only add a better reference ground for the actual signal to be picked up by the intermediate electronics inside the recorder (possibly even resonate with the filter electronics). This especially if the unit is poorly shielded from EM interference, such that slot antenna theory comes into play for penetration of a limited Faraday cage.

Didn't mean to insinuate you personally. Just speaking in general terms of boxed thinking. No offense intended, sorry if it came out that way. Chalk it up to my ADD/stupidity/punctuation/narcolepsy/hypochondria/brain damage, etc....

I hate these inline quotes...

80KHz, yes. (I've got a history in pro-audio) But that implies an AM signal through a nonliear device...more importantly and AM signal. How did the modulate their voices? I'm not saying it's impossible, but you gotta have a mechanism in mind.

Sorry, I'm still buzzing from being pissed off. It'll fade, and then I'll be back to being a regular dickhead, not the one that fired an angry post at you.
 
SnakeOil said:
I hate these inline quotes...

80KHz, yes. (I've got a history in pro-audio) But that implies an AM signal through a nonliear device...more importantly and AM signal. How did the modulate their voices? I'm not saying it's impossible, but you gotta have a mechanism in mind.

Sorry, I'm still buzzing from being pissed off. It'll fade, and then I'll be back to being a regular dickhead, not the one that fired an angry post at you.
I tried to clean up the quotes a little. In this case, your history in pro audio trumps my incidental history in aircraft instrumentation. I only learned enough to make sure the calibrations I needed worked.
We are approaching the problem from two different philosophical viewpoints, but slowly getting to the same point, I think. Your question about modulation is the telltale difference, I think. You look at things from the standpoint that what happens in the circuit is intentional and has to come through the circuit the way that normal signals get into the circuit. My background in electromagnetic compatibility/interference testing taught me that 'noise' gets into circuits wherever it possibly can, especially when dealing with pulsed or modulated high power and frequencies (like radars, lightning, static from helicopter blades), and filters (especially chokes) usually act as antennas, because civilian boxes are rarely shielded properly. Once a microwave or higher frequency establishes a presence in the circuit, any type of modulation or interaction with other frequencies in that environment will create artifacts on the end recording.
I'm sorry I'm not helping you at all and I should just shut up sometimes. I guess what might help is just to say that what you normally think of as a recording system, especially if you build a very good one, may be just the opposite of what will pick up the paranormal phenomenon. A crappy, unshielded mp3 recorder with a wire dangling from the battery ground may end up being an effective ghost recorder, while a Nakamichi tape deck with the best mic in the world simply picks up The Grateful Dead playing on the neighbor's car stereo..pun intended to try and lighten up....
P.S. I'm too tired to get angry much these days. If someone fires an angry post at me, it's usually because I deserved it and shouldn't have said something I did.
 
OK, good. I'm glad we're finding common ground. I take all my BS back.

I've got answers to give, but I've got a little monkey to put to bed (she's 2). I'll post tomorrow. For now, peas.

SnakeOil said:
auntiegrav said:
SnakeOil said:
Struck a nerve, did I? Several, apparently. Sorry about that.
But one thing that I will say...remember that EVP's were picked up on analog tape recorders before DVR's, and that's not a sampling system. More than that, there's likely some amount of anti-aliasing filtering in a DVR (or at least of the design is worth anything - I admit, an assumption). And even more, it's been noted that EVP's have greater occurences when an external mic is used. That all seems rather glaring to me.

Please don't insinuate that I'm incapable of "thinking outside the box". I just prefer to look at evidence first and speculation second.

Not really. I just tried to elaborate too much. Bad habit. ;-)

Remember, analog machines use a high frequency bias signal when recording to reduce the head gap size/increase the dynamic response of the system. Plenty of opportunity for heterodyning a higher freq signal on top of the audio even there.

Anti-aliasing filters usually work on a percentage/cost basis, they aren't necessarily good cliff-dwelling cutoffs, and attaching a microphone to the EVP box may only add a better reference ground for the actual signal to be picked up by the intermediate electronics inside the recorder (possibly even resonate with the filter electronics). This especially if the unit is poorly shielded from EM interference, such that slot antenna theory comes into play for penetration of a limited Faraday cage.

Didn't mean to insinuate you personally. Just speaking in general terms of boxed thinking. No offense intended, sorry if it came out that way. Chalk it up to my ADD/stupidity/punctuation/narcolepsy/hypochondria/brain damage, etc....

I hate these inline quotes...

80KHz, yes. (I've got a history in pro-audio) But that implies an AM signal through a nonliear device...more importantly and AM signal. How did the modulate their voices? I'm not saying it's impossible, but you gotta have a mechanism in mind.

Sorry, I'm still buzzing from being pissed off. It'll fade, and then I'll be back to being a regular dickhead, not the one that fired an angry post at you.
 
BspjPBiP_yM

Here's a little taste of my plasma cannon. It's in progress, so bear that in mind.
 
That thing is freakin bad-ass, even if it is a prop!

OK, so RF....

I would never contest that you can inadvertantly demodulate an AM signal if you're not watching your current paths or leaving long traces or wires where you shouldn't. All it really takes is running it though a non-linear device like a diode (classically), transistor, FET of some kind...anything with a barrier potential. You can do it with a nickel and a Snickers bar, though I couldn't tell you how you'd get a wire on the candy. So the answer to "can it be done" is "absolutely". But there are implications to this, primarily that this is an amplitude modulated signal. It's got a carrier and at least one sideband. And that's the only sort of signal it's likely to be. Accidentally demodulating an FM signal is a whole bunch more work and pretty unlikely, though I'll only go that far (gotta leave some room for inevitably being wrong).

So let's take the examples of the DVR and the analog tape recorder. You pointed out that both have oscillators going. The tape recorder's got 80KHz working on the recording head to loosen the domains before putting new data down, and the DVR samples at...some frequency, depending on the quality of the DVR. Let's assume it's a high quality unit, sampling at 44.1KHz. So if we assume that some ghost is trying to talk to us with an AM voice (let's call it 3KHz baseband and some other modulating signal), and we also assume that both recording devices are such that this signal gets demodulated by a non-linear device before it ends up on the media, then for the 80KKz signal, the sidebands have to be at 77KHz and/or 83KHz, and for the 44.1KHz signal the sidebands have to be at 41.1KHz and/or 47.1KHz. They can't both work.

So let's now say that the DVR is really super cool and samples at twice the normal frequency at 88.2KHz. That puts the sidebands at 91.2KHz and 85.2KHz. Now we're pretty close to a match, at least spectrally. But then there's the problem of non-linear devices in the input chain. Anything made in recent history is going to use op amps, and those are definitely linear in nature. Can they go non-linear? Sure, when they hit a rail, but that takes a really big input signal, somehting that ghosts aren't really known for. But I concede that it could happen, however unlikely.

Then there's the big problem. AM signals don't happen naturally. How did a ghost achieve this? And how did it come to happen at the very convenient frequency of 82-85KHz so that both analog tape recorders and super cool DVR's can pick it up?

So let's assume that this isn't the means that both recorders are picking up these sounds. Now we have to ask what the two devices have in common, and the only answer I can come up with is baseband frequencies. But we can't hear it with our ears, can we? So I cluged together a coil and a preamp to see if there was anything to it.

Please don't take offense to my post. I'm not baggin on you cuz it's fun. If you can bring me around to your argument, if you can convice me (if you should care to, maybe you don't, dunno), then I swear to whatever god you want that I will build it. And I will happily eat my words. I don't care about being right, I just want to know what it's all about. If that means I'm wrong in the process, so be it.

Hey JR! Where's that recording?
 
SnakeOil said:
OK, so RF....

I would never contest that you can inadvertantly demodulate an AM signal if you're not watching your current paths or leaving long traces or wires where you shouldn't.
Granted, but those perfectly designed paths and traces are effective as bandpass devices only within their design spec for power and 'normal' environments. I'm trying to get you to think about things outside of the normal space we tend to work in with electronics. I don't know about Ghosts, I don't think I have ever seen one. If, though, the supposed ZPF is permeating all space, then it permeates all components of the recorders, regardless of the shielding. Much as a DC magnetic field penetrates an aluminum box. The paranormal entity may simply be modulating a field that isn't your standard electromagnetic field (something like gamma rays), but it affects a certain percentage of the molecules in the recording device under the right conditions. If you want to match some kind of beat frequency in that unknown field, then the higher you can get to it, the fewer stages of IF would be needed to record it. Apparently, there are conditions where these things are already recorded on a regular basis. I don't know enough about the specific recordings to make calls on the commonalities of the reports.
Then there's the big problem. AM signals don't happen naturally. How did a ghost achieve this?

Sure they do. Well, technically, our AM receivers pick up all kinds of AM signals from spinning stars, lightning, electric eels. Not to mention how two CW signals will create a 'beat' frequency which is amplitude modulated by virtue of interference. Taken to a hypothetical ghost extreme, would any entity which was energy based be an AM entity? Some kind of pulsed formation? For it to create audio signals would it be like listening to the data bus of your favorite Intel processor with a cheap little transistor radio? It's really a pulse modulated signal, but you can hear it with an AM radio(try putting a cheap pocket calculator up next to a boom box antenna, for a sampling).

So let's assume that this isn't the means that both recorders are picking up these sounds. Now we have to ask what the two devices have in common, and the only answer I can come up with is baseband frequencies.
In terms of the universe, they have a LOT in common; electrons, oscillators, amplifiers, matter (vs. antimatter), metal parts, power supplies. Is it possible that the chemical reaction in the battery is really doing the demodulation? Probably not, since that would be audio on the power supply, and usually clamped down. But then, maybe not on battery-only devices, so maybe?)
But we can't hear it with our ears, can we? So I cluged together a coil and a preamp to see if there was anything to it.
I'm just driving the desk at this point. You have taken action. I didn't mean to criticize that, just throwing in my usual 'stir the pot' suggestions. My intentions for building devices go toward some other scientific ideas right now, and I haven't fit the time into building them in between all my other distractions and repairs. (but I waste too much time on the internet for sure)
Please don't take offense to my post. I'm not baggin on you cuz it's fun. If you can bring me around to your argument, if you can convince me (if you should care to, maybe you don't, dunno), then I swear to whatever god you want that I will build it. And I will happily eat my words. I don't care about being right, I just want to know what it's all about. If that means I'm wrong in the process, so be it.
Like I said, I usually open my mouth too much and offend someone. You are approaching it step by step and from the technical standpoint of intentional audio design (using the tools the way they were meant to be used), while I have found a lot of screwed up designs because of things that didn't do what they were supposed to do when zapped with high frequency or high power transmitters. I have often had more luck finding problems by not trying to find them. Once you get into RF work, shielding gets measured in attenuation amount, signals follow every skin and sharp point, static electricity coronas sing songs, and antenna design becomes more art than engineering.
I once owned a '79 Plymouth/Mitsubishi car which used the trunk lid for the radio antenna. You just never know what component will act as the insertion point for signals unless you have designed the device and control every signal it sees. We can assume that because we are recording an audio signal with an electronic device, that the signal is electromagnetic in nature. That IS the most likely answer, but it isn't necessarily the only one, it's just the easiest for us to work with due to our present knowledge. We have to acknowledge that our knowledge is probably incomplete when it comes to information transmission in the universe.
I'll probably leave you alone now. I will read your response, but I have to cut back on my screwing-off time.
Oh. For suggestions, so I'm not being just a yakker about it:
1. try having the device near different materials which may pick up and re-radiate the signal and change its characteristics. (since we don't know what we are looking for, this is a crap shoot: everything from silk to shinola, compounds, crystals, large rocks (apparently there is something with granite (maybe granulated quartz to some spirits is like a ferrite core in a transformer)
2. humidity (fog machine?), dust, anything that can absorb light or heat or radio energy
3. night vs. daytime. The sun generates a lot of noise that may make life difficult for entities that live in a low energy environment or maybe it feeds them. Watch for other devices that generate crap on the airwaves (wireless phones, wi-fi, compact flourescents, regular flourescents, touch activated lamps, halogen lights, cellphones, computers)
4. cheaper recording equipment will have poorer shielding in general, may pick up something easier.
5. I know the battery idea is 'out there', but try lithium batteries, regular dry cells, alkalines, nicads, etc....?
6. different room geometry (round, high ceilings, hallways, bathrooms (iron tub?)
Meanwhile, I've got an MP3 recorder and I'll turn it on once in a while when I'm out under the stars or wandering around with the aaaaanimals....maybe the ghosts of my dead chickens will talk to me (mmmm mmm good).

"Nobody stops the signal, Mal" --Mr. Universe, "Serenity"
 
Arright, let's boil this down. In principal, in general, ignore the hair-splitting, with only minor caveats, I agree with the vast majority of what you say. But here comes the coop-de-gracey...

auntiegrav said:
We can assume that because we are recording an audio signal with an electronic device, that the signal is electromagnetic in nature. That IS the most likely answer, but it isn't necessarily the only one, it's just the easiest for us to work with due to our present knowledge.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Start with the obvious. Observation, hypothesis, test. If this fails, we augment and move on. No harm, no foul.

auntiegrav said:
We have to acknowledge that our knowledge is probably incomplete when it comes to information transmission in the universe.

Absolutely. I'm not about to rule anything out, I'm just not going to leap for a flux capacitor on my first attempt. At the moment I've got no reason to think these things are anything but what I've suggested, so I'll build nothing more complicated than I have (and as I've said all along, it's nothing special). JR suggested that he heard something unusual with it already. If I can just squeeze that recording out of him, I can throw it at matlab and see what I can see.

Gah! No more thinking!
 
SnakeOil said:
Hey JR! Where's that recording?

Still trying at a nearly nightly basis to get it again. I've heard it once since, but it wasnt the "in your face" type as before. Lemme go try now and see what I get.
 
Ok, here:
http://www.thundereagleguitars.com/DW_A0031.wav

At first I'm not holding it in the right area, but then I hit the spot. After that I'm not moving. Hear the wuuub, wuuub...that was very, very fast and incredibly loud the first time I heard it. This is will all power in the house shut off at the breaker.

But I have to emphasize this is nothing like it was the first time. If it's something mundane, ok. I've yet to take it into the main house where my shop is due to the owner being busy with home repairs, but I should get a chance this week, and we'll see what happens.

I have used Snake's device at my shop, and while I havent heard any voices or the like, I'm amazed at what it picks up.

This recording listed in this post is from my bathroom doorway, where my wife and I see alot of wierd stuff like shadows walking into the bathroom, and where we saw the fuzzy black box heading that I spoke about on the show...it's also where David saw the "cat" (which we dont have) heading towards that direction.

The first time I used the coil I got a huge response out of this area, however this is all I have gotten since. I least the wuub sound is heard, which I havent been getting. But it was a hell of alot more then that before. See what ya make of it if anything. I'll keep trying around here.
 
jritzmann said:
SnakeOil said:
Hey JR! Where's that recording?

Still trying at a nearly nightly basis to get it again. I've heard it once since, but it wasnt the "in your face" type as before. Lemme go try now and see what I get.



ever mess around with a ouija board Jeff? Any results? I got fantastic results as a teenage which is quite a long story to tell, none in more recent times. I have a board still, no one to use it with though. I've tried many times by myself and got nothing. I'd consider giving it to you since it's going to waste here.
 
Paranormal Packrat said:
ever mess around with a ouija board Jeff? Any results? I got fantastic results as a teenage which is quite a long story to tell, none in more recent times. I have a board still, no one to use it with though. I've tried many times by myself and got nothing. I'd consider giving it to you since it's going to waste here.

Yup, no thanx. I've learned over the years they arent anything to mess with, despite the fact that I think theyre just a facilitation tool for involuntary muscle movements. I just dont like them.
 
Oh, poop. Nah, that's house wiring, 60Hz. I'll try to get a picture on a scope or spectrum analyzer. I wish I could say it's something much cooler, but that's just your garden variety noise. +10 points for the effort, though J.
 
Hey no sweat there, at least at this point I know what to listen for. It just sounded wierd to me.

I'll definitely keep trying around here, and I keep the device closeby in the living room to get in case we see anything in that area I can rush to it.

Anything I get that sounds wierd to me, I'll post.
 
Back
Top