Paranormal investigation team
 
HomePortalRegisterLog in
For the latest news follow Visions Paranormal Support Group on Facebook
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 
Rechercher Advanced Search
Latest topics
» Palace Theatre, Plymouth
Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:48 pm by Ian

» Cybernatural Occurrence
Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:24 pm by medea

» computer ghosts
Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:20 pm by Ian

» Possible full bodied apparition at the dower house.
Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:30 pm by Nightcrawler

» Matrixing piccys
Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:31 pm by Nightcrawler

Navigation
 Portal
 Index
 Memberlist
 Profile
 FAQ
 Search
Forum
Affiliates
free forum
 
Affiliates
free forum
 

Share | 
 

 haunted park

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Ian
Administrator, Founder & Lead Investigator
avatar

Number of posts : 1802
Age : 46
Location : Plymouth
Registration date : 2008-01-16

PostSubject: haunted park   Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:42 pm

http://www.west-wind.com/wconnect/photoalbum/evp%20park.wav

This is an EVP taken in a nearby park where a person hung himself about 10 years ago, i have visited this park a few times and tried to take photo´s , i wasn´t succesful because my camera went dead , rumour has that this park is haunted and a white figure has said to have been seen there , the only thing i experienced was having the feeling that i was being watched, after recording this maybe i was being watched.

I´m sorry but this EVP is in German but at around the 50 sec mark there is a whispering voice to be heard that says "warte auf mich " which means wait for me.

I will carry out further investigations at the park and try to get further evidence to confirm these rumours.

_________________


Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my hand.
Back to top Go down
http://visionsinvestigation.forumotion.com
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: haunted park   Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:40 am

AWSOME Phantom.........

There is definately something there! I will also analyse it and slow it down a little to identify what it is saying...

The first EVP and a great one..... Very Happy
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: haunted park   Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:59 am

I'll most probably get banned for this... but nevertheless, I can't refrain from posting this video link:

Michael Shermer @ TED : Why people believe strange things

The audio phenomenom example he's giving is pretty impressive, but also the mars-face is related to this: Humans are pattern seeking animals. We constantly try to see faces and hear voices, it's how our brains are programmed by evolution. It is useful most of the times, but it is very misleading when investigating audio and video phonemenoms.

Also I'd like to remind you guys that postulating that something supernatural is going on in a park, without the faintest evidence is not quite what I'd call "scientific investigation". What's more likely, that a ghost empties the battery of a camera, or that there is a natural explanation? What's more likely, that the fuzzy mist on a picture is a ghost, or that there is a natural explanation?

The burdon of proof is on the one postulating a ghost, not on the skeptic. Keep that in mind. Just because people have difficulties on figuring a logical explanation (as for example why brand-new batteries empty quite fast) it does not mean that none exists (as fore example humidity leading to faster discharge - I had a laptop discharging within seconds once, it turned out to be water condensations on the battery and could easily be reproduced).

Here's the enhanced wav of the "warte auf mich" part in that wav:

"warte auf mich" ?

Honestly, I think the pattern-seeking brain strikes again here: It hardly is human language.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Dubunking all skeptical theories on EVP...   Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:37 pm

Well Cat-i, this is a very sceptical argument that does warrant discussion...As professional paranormal investigators, Phantom and I think it only fair to try and debunk all sceptical arguments regarding the validity of EVP's.

EVP or Electronic voice phenomena is the voices and or sounds recorded on audio or video tape and are usually only heard after the tape is played back. EVP was first explored by Thomas Edison in the 1920's and was further developed in the later 1950's by Friedrich Juergenson. On the heels of Juergenson, Konstantine Raudive conducted similar research with similar findings: both Juergenson and Raudive reported contacting their mother's from beyond the grave via recordings. Today EVP's are explored by hundreds of researchers worldwide, in an effort to both understand and master the science of electronic voice phenomena.

The sceptical arguments posed in opposition to the validity of electronic voice phenomena are numerous. What is important to remember, however, is that just because many arguments against the validity of EVP's exist; it does not imply that such arguments are compelling or irrefutable. By examining some of the popular arguments in opposition of electronic voice phenomena, it becomes clear that many arguments do not stand up to open-minded analysis. Here are some of the most popular arguments that I have come across:

Argument #1: EVP's are the result of people deriving meaning out of natural noises and is a form of auditory pareidolia. (Pareidolia is the false perception or misinterpretation of an unclear stimulus that is observed as something clear or palpable).

My rebuttal: Although some natural sounds may come across as evps and produce "false positive evidence", such an argument certainly does not explain all evps. During analysis, evps are sorted into three classifications: A, B, and C, respectively. Although it is quite possible to misconstrue evps that fall under the "C" classification, the sceptical argument that Class "A" or even Class "B" evps cannot be clearly identified is nonsense. The reason for the distortion of class "C" evps is twofold. First, such evps are usually whispers, can be either heard in the background of an audio tape and/or over someone else speaking at the time. Second, upon filtering, class "C" evps often require significant noise reduction for clarity. This is not the case for class "A" and sometime class "B" evps. When classifying evps, especially those that fall into the class "A" category, such evps appear on tape as clearly as if an individual was standing next to the researcher and speaking during the time of taping. What's more, producing similar results on a fairly consist basis weakens the argument for obscurity.

Argument #2: EVP's are the result of nothing more than the power of suggestion.

Rebuttal: Again, in some cases this might be true. However, I have been part of teams that have captured evps that we have shared with clients during disclosure without suggesting to them what it is we have heard. The client then positively identifies what we have heard. Thus, the argument for priming is weakened. What's more, such an argument suggests that people do not have the ability to think for themselves or make deductions about what it is they perceive. What makes this argument completely fall apart is the fact that the researcher who analyses evps does not always have someone present to suggest what it is they are hearing. How can one individual analysing audio tape be primed to hear something when there is no one else available to provide suggestions? Such a question leads to the next argument.

Argument #3: EVP's are the product of expectations: they are what people either believe should be heard at the time or they are what the individual wants to hear.

Rebuttal: Again, upon a cursory review of some evps this argument is plausible. Yet, if we consider it at a deeper level, the argument's strength wanes. It is true that if an individual poses a question like, "Is anybody here?" They may expect to hear a "yes" or "no" response. This is logical if questioning in a "yes" or "no" format. What is difficult to explain away are the interactive, intelligent answers you receive when you ask questions or even when you don't ask anything at all. For example, many researchers when taping the initial interview with clients often get intelligent responses from voices other than the clients. In fact, on one particular investigation where I was present, the clients asked us if we would like to be invited to their former home to investigate any activity that might be present and immediately after the client provided the invitation a class A evp appeared saying: "We're in it." This was certainly an unexpected response as we were all pleased to find the response on tape.

Argument #4: The use of white noise causes a researcher to pick up stray sound waves or cross modulation from other electronic sources and nothing more.

Rebuttal: Some white noise source may indeed capture stray sound waves. A radio station tuned between stations, a television set between stations, or scanners can pick up sound waves from other sources. However, white noise can also be obtained by using a cd as a white noise sound source or even something as simple as a household fan. Such sources cannot pick up stray sound waves. What's more, even if the recorder picked up stray waves, it certainly cannot explain away all evps, especially those that are both intelligent and interactive.

Argument #5: EVP's have to be replayed repeatedly to be understood, therefore they are merely misconstrued. After repeatedly listening to something you will hear almost anything.

Rebuttal: This may be the case sometimes. Yet, how does this argument explain some evps, especially class "A" evps that are heard immediately? What's more, how are such evps heard clearly by many individuals, or several members of the same team?

Argument #6: EVP's are the products of people with a predisposed belief system.

Rebuttal: This argument is not always accurate. Just because a person practices certain beliefs, it does not mean that they will either believe or disbelieve in the validity electronic voice phenomena. Such a statement stereotypes people and could not be further from the truth. Many scientifically minded, logic-oriented individuals believe in the validity of evps. Likewise, there are many who do not-like with any other subject matter it is the choice of the individual to believe or not. The belief in evps is something that crosses the borders of all religions and all belief systems and it is not something that falls into the category of predisposed faiths or ideas.

In Conclusion

In short, the debate pertaining to the validity of electronic voice phenomena rages on. What is important to bear in mind however, is that both the believers and the sceptic’s arguments are a necessary process in discovery. Through constructive debate, clear conclusions can be drawn and with each new argument that arises, the possibility to learn and grow from such experiences also occurs. Finally, remember that the art of debate is not about trying to convert someone's thinking-it is more about trying to get to the bottom of a controversial matter. Not all minds meet in the middle and until they do, it is up to the individual to decide whether or electronic voice phenomena is a valid experience or not. I personally feel that this phenomena is one that deserves respect and recognition as being quite unexplained.....
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: haunted park   Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:16 pm

Ecto wrote:
EVP or Electronic voice phenomena is the voices and or sounds recorded on audio or video tape and are usually only heard after the tape is played back. EVP was first explored by Thomas Edison in the 1920's and was further developed in the later 1950's by Friedrich Juergenson.
Sorry to say, but Edison did not explore EVPs, at least there are no indications at all that he did so. The reason that Edison is often referred to as an explorer of EVPs is because he was asked during an interview with the "scientific american" whether he believed if contact with the dead may be possible. He answered that he does not know, but that it is possible to build electronic devices that are more accurate than the human body. (Btw, Edison was actually not a believer in dualism - his beliefs were near atheistic, hence the very idea that Edison invested time talking to dead souls certainly is no more than another urban myth). This is actually a very good example of how the pseudo-scientific myths evolve.

Ecto wrote:
On the heels of Juergenson, Konstantine Raudive conducted similar research with similar findings: both Juergenson and Raudive reported contacting their mother's from beyond the grave via recordings. Today EVP's are explored by hundreds of researchers worldwide, in an effort to both understand and master the science of electronic voice phenomena.
Yeah...Raudive - it's funny that this guy is another psychologist (there's a certain trend in psychologists trying to uproot the world of physics and mathematics without any real knowledge of the field). When there will be a peer-reviewed article that is published in "nature" or "science" I may be more impressed. I guess that's the main problem: where is the scientific peer-reviewing? This is another lack of scientific method, and unfortunately all too common.

Ecto wrote:
The sceptical arguments posed in opposition to the validity of electronic voice phenomena are numerous. What is important to remember, however, is that just because many arguments against the validity of EVP's exist; it does not imply that such arguments are compelling or irrefutable.
I disagree. EVP is a typical case of where Occam's razor is to be applied. The burdon of proof is strictly on the proponents that postulate a new theory, hence even if sceptics had no arguments at all that would not add to the credibility of EVP. Infact the ontological status of EVP is on the same level with the "living Elvis" (actual sightings have been reported). I am tempted to list tons of arguments that clearly show that the proponents of EVP are having the burdon of proof here, but I think one of the most powerful arguments to refute your statement above is Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy. ("I postulate that there is a tiny golden teapot orbiting the sun. Please prove me wrong.").


Ecto wrote:
Argument #1: EVP's are the result of people deriving meaning out of natural noises and is a form of auditory pareidolia. (Pareidolia is the false perception or misinterpretation of an unclear stimulus that is observed as something clear or palpable).

My rebuttal: Although some natural sounds may come across as evps and produce "false positive evidence", such an argument certainly does not explain all evps. During analysis, evps are sorted into three classifications: A, B, and C, respectively. Although it is quite possible to misconstrue evps that fall under the "C" classification, the sceptical argument that Class "A" or even Class "B" evps cannot be clearly identified is nonsense. The reason for the distortion of class "C" evps is twofold. First, such evps are usually whispers, can be either heard in the background of an audio tape and/or over someone else speaking at the time. Second, upon filtering, class "C" evps often require significant noise reduction for clarity. This is not the case for class "A" and sometime class "B" evps. When classifying evps, especially those that fall into the class "A" category, such evps appear on tape as clearly as if an individual was standing next to the researcher and speaking during the time of taping. What's more, producing similar results on a fairly consist basis weakens the argument for obscurity.
Ok. So the "voices" are classified into A,B, and C. So what? You admit yourself that it is quite possible to misconstrue evps that fall under the class "C" classification. So only A and B are interesting, since we found a good explanation for class C.


Ecto wrote:
Argument #2: EVP's are the result of nothing more than the power of suggestion.

Rebuttal: Again, in some cases this might be true. However, I have been part of teams that have captured evps that we have shared with clients during disclosure without suggesting to them what it is we have heard. The client then positively identifies what we have heard. Thus, the argument for priming is weakened. What's more, such an argument suggests that people do not have the ability to think for themselves or make deductions about what it is they perceive. What makes this argument completely fall apart is the fact that the researcher who analyses evps does not always have someone present to suggest what it is they are hearing. How can one individual analysing audio tape be primed to hear something when there is no one else available to provide suggestions? Such a question leads to the next argument.

Argument #3: EVP's are the product of expectations: they are what people either believe should be heard at the time or they are what the individual wants to hear.

Rebuttal: Again, upon a cursory review of some evps this argument is plausible. Yet, if we consider it at a deeper level, the argument's strength wanes. It is true that if an individual poses a question like, "Is anybody here?" They may expect to hear a "yes" or "no" response. This is logical if questioning in a "yes" or "no" format. What is difficult to explain away are the interactive, intelligent answers you receive when you ask questions or even when you don't ask anything at all. For example, many researchers when taping the initial interview with clients often get intelligent responses from voices other than the clients. In fact, on one particular investigation where I was present, the clients asked us if we would like to be invited to their former home to investigate any activity that might be present and immediately after the client provided the invitation a class A evp appeared saying: "We're in it." This was certainly an unexpected response as we were all pleased to find the response on tape.
Actually I think argument #2 and #3 are the same. Suggestion produces an expectation, hence it's the "you tend to hear what you expect" argument. You say yourself that this argument is plausible - that's not a rebuttal then, is it? As for your example with the "We're in it.": Have you seriously looked for other explanations, or wasn't it all to convenient to just say GHOST! without even trying to dig into further scientific experiments. It's actually a quite good example of the "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy. (In this case it's a ghost of the gaps). Whenever people can't explain something they tend to explain it with gods, fairies, deamons, and ghosts. That is a very natural behaviour, because the human brain is hardwired to find explanations, and if no plausible explanation can be found it will just trick itself and believe something which it just invented.

Ecto wrote:
Argument #4: The use of white noise causes a researcher to pick up stray sound waves or cross modulation from other electronic sources and nothing more.

Rebuttal: Some white noise source may indeed capture stray sound waves. A radio station tuned between stations, a television set between stations, or scanners can pick up sound waves from other sources. However, white noise can also be obtained by using a cd as a white noise sound source or even something as simple as a household fan. Such sources cannot pick up stray sound waves. What's more, even if the recorder picked up stray waves, it certainly cannot explain away all evps, especially those that are both intelligent and interactive.
And? What makes you think that when using a cd as a white noise sound source it does not pick up radio waves? It actually is bound to pick them up, and the constructors of cd-player are trying very hard to minimize that effect (but are never 100% succesfull). If it is possible to pick up EVPs so easily then I wonder why the guys at SETI do not pick them up on a daily basis....

Ecto wrote:
Argument #5: EVP's have to be replayed repeatedly to be understood, therefore they are merely misconstrued. After repeatedly listening to something you will hear almost anything.

Rebuttal: This may be the case sometimes. Yet, how does this argument explain some evps, especially class "A" evps that are heard immediately? What's more, how are such evps heard clearly by many individuals, or several members of the same team?
The arguments start to repeat here: We already found ways to naturally explain even class "A" evps, so no need for any supernatural/paranormal explanation. (Occam's razor cuts again...)

Ecto wrote:
Argument #6: EVP's are the products of people with a predisposed belief system.

Rebuttal: This argument is not always accurate. Just because a person practices certain beliefs, it does not mean that they will either believe or disbelieve in the validity electronic voice phenomena. Such a statement stereotypes people and could not be further from the truth. Many scientifically minded, logic-oriented individuals believe in the validity of evps. Likewise, there are many who do not-like with any other subject matter it is the choice of the individual to believe or not. The belief in evps is something that crosses the borders of all religions and all belief systems and it is not something that falls into the category of predisposed faiths or ideas.
True, this is not always accurate. Keep in mind though that most of the evp proponents can savely be called anti-logic-oriented.

Ecto wrote:
In Conclusion

In short, the debate pertaining to the validity of electronic voice phenomena rages on. What is important to bear in mind however, is that both the believers and the sceptic’s arguments are a necessary process in discovery. Through constructive debate, clear conclusions can be drawn and with each new argument that arises, the possibility to learn and grow from such experiences also occurs. Finally, remember that the art of debate is not about trying to convert someone's thinking-it is more about trying to get to the bottom of a controversial matter. Not all minds meet in the middle and until they do, it is up to the individual to decide whether or electronic voice phenomena is a valid experience or not. I personally feel that this phenomena is one that deserves respect and recognition as being quite unexplained.....
I agree. It is quite unaxplained and certainly an interesting phenomenom. Saying it's the dead talking to us makes it hard to for me not to laugh out loud.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: haunted park   Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:46 am

i read quite a bit about the evp's, white noise things...
never believed in it... but as i heard your evp i get frightend - this park is very near to me/us.
well then i started to think about...
i let two other - pretty open minded- guys listen to the track and especially the "one" part.
noone of them could explain wah it is and didnt understand a word. i didnt tell them what is to be heard so that i could test them/it.
after i said to them that "warte auf mich" should be on it, everyone of them realised it also pretty clear.
well this shows us how maipulative our brain is.
however, one of them insist that this is a male voice, the other one is not shure wwhat it is.
i gave him the track, he will analyse it in a music studio, will pitch it, noise reduct and what ever... maybe we can filter something out.

so far...
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: haunted park   

Back to top Go down
 
haunted park
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» A HAUNTED ROOM!
» Driving out of car park with police at the exit
» PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT FOR DANAO ADVENTURE PARK
» The Haunted School and Shape Shifter
» Privately Owned Mt. Vernon Closed by Natl. Park Service

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
visions  :: Ghost Talk :: EVP´s-
Jump to: