tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8140895004770583632024-03-05T09:15:18.315-08:00U Debunked ItA fair and open-minded investigation into ghosts, hauntings, spirits, cryptids, demons and other experiences of the paranormal, plus reviews of paranormal TV shows.Chriss Paganihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11644410311763728065noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-814089500477058363.post-51614492322721361512020-04-28T11:39:00.001-07:002020-05-03T16:25:24.593-07:00It's Aliens, Dude ..or NotI kept hoping someone besides me would talk about the government release - slow dribble, really - of footage of UAPs. I just want to point out what seems to be missing from the convo, and let others dig into it more deeply, because I just don't care that much anymore....<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PLbosBj9Dow" width="560"></iframe>
The thing that always seems to be missed in this discussion is that we are looking at computer generated target acquisition data. That's a big deal.<br />
<br />
What you're seeing is something on a computer display screen. The pilots are not looking at ANYTHING directly. These systems synthesize data from radar and multi spectrum imaging to create a visual facsimile of the information the system is being fed.<br />
<br />
You are seeing a visual representation of computer data, and that data is sometimes faulty. The processes by which computer data is represented in this visual form are secret, but you can see where the problem might arise: Bad data creates bad representations. All you might be seeing here is a computer AI having a hallucination.<br />
<br />
And you'd think the military would know that. So why all the gaslighting? That's the more interesting question.<br />
<br />
Seriously, as much as we spend on the military, I find it hard to believe they don't know what's going on, here. Which means there is an agenda at play of which we are pleasantly ignorant.<br />
<br />
To help you understand what you're actually looking at, and what all the display info means, you should definitely watch this video (it's not me, because I'm way too lazy these days to bother, but after you watch it you'll have an answer.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mfhAC2YiYHs" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br />Chriss Paganihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11644410311763728065noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-814089500477058363.post-19632615282746458222015-08-20T13:50:00.001-07:002015-09-26T14:12:47.763-07:00Homeland Security UFO Video Analyzed <b>UPDATE: <i>I made an error or two and have created a graph showing proper triangulation at the bottom of this page, with corrections, and with notes on conclusions!</i></b><br />
<br />
A Puerto Rico "UFO" video has been making the rounds. I analyzed the video after it became a hot topic on Reddit, and posted about it there, but I felt I owed my readers analysis. You'll have to pardon my lazy writing here, because I'm already pretty talked-out about it as I write. Here is the video:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q6s5RwqnnLM" width="420"></iframe>
<br />
It looks weird, doesn't it? It's IR video, of course, so even a video of a human looks otherworldly in that context. Honestly, I was more than a little surprised the skeptics (some of them, at least) seemed flummoxed by this video. I'm not a skeptic, just an open minded investigator, and UFOs are not my thing, but still...<br />
<br />
The video is from 2013 but this month the Science Coalition for Ufology released its lengthy 161 page report detailing their analysis of the video. Their conclusions were a bit surprising to me, since I immediately saw a problem with how they derived their numbers and concluded that this was an anomalous event - an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. Now, as I said, I'm a bit talked out on this subject. I didn't want to get into it because it's just not my "thing," but since I saw some errors that nobody else seemed to notice, I felt compelled to point them out. So pardon the fact that I will be copy-pasting some of my Reddit comments as part of this article, but I can't handle rehashing it. Sorry.<br />
<br />
Claims are made about the bird traveling 86 miles per hour, and later flying through the water at a similar speed. I think there were too many assumptions involved. Just looking at the
display, there was an attempted target lock at around 43
seconds into the video (the box that briefly pops-up around the crosshairs) - this fails. This is a clue in itself: The target had plenty of heat signature, and once in the crosshairs, the operator pulled the trigger, but the lock failed. This was an immediate clue that we were looking at a very small target; one below the threshold of the software for target tracking. We understand that. Mostly these IR systems are used to lock onto aircraft, or cars, or sometimes people. But you don't want them accidentally locking on a very small target such as a bird. Now the lack of a lock is important, because it means that all the target readings on the lower right display were not about this target. Instead, they are a mean average for the ground. This means that the coordinates cannot be used to establish any speed estimates whatsoever. And We will address that further, because it led to a fundamental error on the part of the SCU investigators.<br />
<br />
The aircraft was turning
and climbing during this, starting out heading WNW (302 degrees) and
ending up going SE when they lost the target. The target was North of
the aircraft for this entire event. They increased their distance to the
target throughout this. I think it was 2.7 nautical miles downrange on
lock attempt, and they were 3.4 nautical miles down range as the bird crossed
the shoreline, then 4.0 nautical miles downrange when the bird lands in
the water.<br />
<br />
IMPORTANT POINT: As alluded earlier, the coordinates shown on the video display are those of the far distant ground, not of the target - and I will conclusively prove that at the end of this commentary. Because the investigators used the coordinates of the land, they got a total arc of 2.2 miles, and that is where they came up with their ground speed. Furthermore, they used the moving ground coordinates to try to establish a movement speed "underwater" while viewing a stationary target. The coordinates continue to move as the airplane moves, however, they have NOTHING to do with any target you are looking at, unless the target is locked! But back to the video for the moment.... <br />
<br />
You really catch the shoreline at 1:55 in the video; aircraft is
still turning left, now at 155 degrees. Target is estimated 16 ft above
ground, 3.4 nautical miles downrange (but of course, that's the LAND not the bird).
Right after this is when we zoom in, at 1:58. At 2:00 to 2:04, you can
really make-out the shape of a pelican: big curved neck, long bill, and
wings in that classic glide arc.
Now we're 3.7 nautical miles down range. Some people have objected that you can't see wings, but you can - only at certain points. You have to remember that this is infrared video; it's reading heat signatures. Since wings are thin and have low vascularization, they have a very low heat signature. To infrared, they are almost invisible.<br />
<br />
At 2::05 you see the bird land in the water. 2:06 they lose the target when the bird lands in the water (heat
signature disappears, of course). 4 nautical miles down range: Target is
North/northeast of the aircraft, but the aircraft is flying SE. Now we have some controversy as the operator supposedly tracks the target underwater, moving as fast as they thought it was moving in the air!<br />
<br />
I don't see a bird flying underwater (or a UFO). I see a heat
signature artifact that appears briefly on screen after the camera
operator loses the bird (because it landed in the water and the heat
signature disappeared). You'll notice it's no longer a heat signature
(dark) at that point, but a cold signature (white). He does seem to spot a floating pelican momentarily but perhaps didn't realize that was what he was following to start with, so he zooms back out again, to hunt.. The changes in coordinates you see on screen are describing the visible sea area as the plane moves away and turns, that's all. I will restate yet again, that the ground coordinates, when there is no locked target, describe a mean average of the ground (or sea) being views, and they are constantly in motion because the plane is moving. These coordinates cannot be used to make a speed estimate. We proved that there is no target lock and the coordinates describe only the visible landscape/seascape. About the waves and speed: <i>They</i> seem to be moving really
fast (all of the waves, you'll notice) but that's because of the
aircraft speed and the foreshortening of the long telephoto lens, not because they are turbocharged ocean waves.<br />
<br />
Finally, zoomed out, the camera operator (while panning) spots two birds taking off
from the water at about 2:32 and he zooms in again. There is another important point here: who says one of these two birds is the same one as the camera guy followed to the water? Pelicans are ubiquitous in the area and there could be thousands of them out there; all invisible to the IR because their feathers are at water temperature. That assumption was another mistake, and it is one of the assumptions behind the alleged underwater flying, along with the the error displayed throughout the analysis: Thinking that the ever-changing coordinates described a target, which they do not..<br />
<br />
..Bob, the other half of udebunked despite the fact that he never writes anything, commented to me the thing I was thinking: This seems like a <i>very inexperienced</i> IR operator. Perhaps his first-ever field work? Birds are seen on IR all the time. <i>Everybody</i> knows that the wings are hard to see when looking down from above with a warm (high heat signature) land background. Everyone knows their movement profile. What was this person's problem? We'll probably never know. This is part of the <i>real </i>mystery: If you believe the SCU report, nobody in the Homeland Security service or Air Force could figure it out... so they just <i>gave</i> it to UFO people. Y<i>eah, that's believable..</i>. (wiping smirk off face) as in not believable at all. With the Air Force's IR profile database, the match could have been made by computer in like a tenth of a second. So then the <i>real</i> mystery is why some bird footage was proffered to UFO groups by the government..what were they up to? Some kind of test? If so, the UFO people failed that test. Maybe <i>that </i>is what the government wanted. But I digress....<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
---</div>
<br />
Personally, I don't see any indicators of high speed at all. The
heads-up display is misleading people into thinking the bird is covering
a huge distance, but it's not a locked target so we're getting
coordinates of distant ground. Those coordinates are always in constant motion, even when viewing a stationary but unlocked target. Don't believe me? Look at the first part of the video, before the operator starts chasing a bird. The ONLY way you can arrive at a speed estimation is to find a stationary ground target with a known width, and use that to triangulate vertically and horizontally, to establish a speed.. When you do that, it doesn't look fast at all.<br />
<br />
Then
we get to the landing in the water, which we actually see at 2:05,
followed immediately by the loss of heat signature (and the white
artifact) at 2:06. Again, no speed really. The waves look fast, because
of foreshortening by the enormous zoom (remember the aircraft is now
over 4 nautical miles away, so that's like equiv. 2,000 millimeter lens) and
the effect of the aircraft making a left turn, which means the waves
(like the bird) are being videoed in a moving arc, with the aircraft's
speed being added to the apparent ground and wave speed. You could
calculate how much apparent speed the aircraft is adding to the bird by
tracking the turn of the aircraft throughout the video (goes from WNW
around to the SE and finally to the NE in the same short time slice) - doing a sight line and tangent analysis -
but I'm too lazy to do that, and it would be highly problematic anyway because altitude of the target would be a critical factor (and we don't have that). <br />
<br />
The ground arc is a
total of 2.2 miles, but much of that is accounted for the the turning
aircraft and the fact that those coordinates are of the far distant ground (and constantly in motion because of the aircraft), NOT the bird.<br />
<br />
* ... To give an example of this: Bird crosses <strike>a two lane
highway</strike> (airport runway) at 1:14 to 1:16 - (coordinates 18 29 51N 67 07 04W ) to
18 29 54N 67 07 08W <a class="imgScanned" href="https://www.google.com/maps/@18.497937,-67.118269,382m/data=%213m1%211e3?hl=en-US" rel="nofollow">Google map</a>, (<b>THIS IS HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE</b>, as you will see) which shows that is a distance of 294ft. 294 feet covered in 2 seconds - IF the bird were flying at 0 feet above the ground <i>and</i> we were viewing the road from directly above - that's the only way their measurements would work!<br />
<br />
But we <i>know</i>
that isn't true: the bird is in the air and being viewed from 2.1
nautical miles away from an <strike>altitude of 2100 FT</strike> (corrected in graphic), and the <strike>road</strike> (airport runway) is seen at
a very oblique angle, which tells you that the bird is closer to the aircraft than the coordinate estimates would imply. Applying a
little trigonometry, it appears that the bird is covering about <strike>65 air
feet</strike> (corrected in graphic) in that same two seconds, yielding a lazy speed of <strike>22.36 mph</strike> (corrected in graphic). So
yeah, the speed and turn of the aircraft, the long-distance view and
foreshortening of the zoom lens is giving a very misleading impression. Also note that while the road can be checked to confirm it is 294 feet, the displayed coordinates travel almost 500 feet as the bird crosses that road. Again, the coordinate motion, when there is no locked target, <i>includes</i> the relative speed of the aircraft.<br />
<br />
Note on speed: You have multiple points which can be triangulated. You must use stationary ground targets of known width. Alternatively, as I said, sight line and tangents give you another way to get at a number, but they are again enslaved to the inaccurate coordinates and therefore problematic. The runway above has a known width. The aircraft had a known position when the bird was observed crossing in front of that <strike>road</strike> (airport runway). The aircraft was 2.1 nautical miles from the road (12760 feet) and <strike>2100 feet in altitude. With that, application of Pythagorean theorem gives us the unknown side of the vertical triangle: 12932 feet. We will need that late for the speed calculations. Now we determine the horizontal triangulation: the space through which the bird actually flies, as you can see in the video. So we take the 12932 feet</strike> (Corrected in graphic) from aircraft to target (the ROAD, remember) and the width of the road (easily obtained from Google maps) which is 294 feet, and get our other side. Now we have a horizontal triangle, which is 294 feet wide at ground level, and makes a point at the aircraft. In other words, the width of the triangle gets smaller as we approach the aircraft. Finally, we have to estimate the height of the bird. That's a little fuzzy, but since elsewhere you see clearly the tops of buildings with the bird far above, you know it isn't skimming the land. I chose 100 feet. It was probably higher. If you go with 200 feet, the bird is traveling a little even slower, and if you go with 800 feet - then we're down to a walking speed. It isn't going 86 miles per hour, that's for sure. So then we find our vertical height lines on the vertical triangle, and that gives us a new base for the horizontal triangle. <strike>I arrived at a 65 foot window that the bird crossed,</strike> as I said. There's fuzz here, but the fuzz factors are altitude and angle passing through the viewing area. At their ends, a perpendicular passage will give you 15 MPH at their suggested height, diagonal passage gives you 44 MPH and diagonal and diving from altitude gives you 72 MPH (however, in that case we would have to see our bird moving parallel to the lines of sight, which is not what is happening. I only mention this to illustrate that there is an outside speed that can be derived, which is still far lower than the SCU report estimates).. Nothing higher than that. Sorry, guys. <br />
<br />
ABOUT THE PROOF of the coordinates error: As you see from the Google map, plugging
those coordinates into Google maps lands you directly on the road which
is off in the distance and only seen obliquely, as you can see. Plug in the coordinates shown at any point, and you'll get the objects seen in the far distant background. THIS
conclusively <i>proves</i> my original point that the coordinates shown are of the far distant background land, <i>not</i>
the bird (otherwise those coordinates would put you on land in between
the aircraft and the road, and not the road). Furthermore, you can observe in this case that the moving ground coordinates always show a greater distance than we know is involved. The road, for example, being a known 294 feet but the ground coordinates reporting a much greater distance. The erroneous speed
estimate was based on those land coordinates, yielding 2.2 miles
covered/86 mph-ish, but the bird is between that far-distant land and
the aircraft camera, and and probably flies under 3/4 mile in that same time frame.
SCU used ground coordinates to establish speed, but we've already proven that these are useless for this process. I'd say that
this is pretty much conclusive. Sorry, though, I'd rather it be
something more interesting!<br />
<br />
Mistake 1: Misunderstanding and failing to acquire the public information available about how the IR display rangefinding works. If they had done this, they would have understood that the lower right coordinates do not refer to a target, <b>unless the target is locked.</b> THE TARGET WAS NEVER LOCKED. Therefore, the numbers are constantly in motion even when looking at things like houses on the ground (which obviously aren't moving) because the aircraft is moving. Those number always show motion. They cannot be used to make speed calculations. All of this could have been avoided by simply sitting down with any experienced military IR operator: It would have taken 30 seconds for him/her to say, "It's a bird," and none of us would have had to go through this tedious and unfortunate process.<br />
<br />
Mistake 2: Having misconstrued the readings, they then used those readings to estimate speed of the bird. And they used their wrong estimate to rule-out the fact that this <i>is</i> a bird. Speed estimations can only be made using stationary ground targets with known widths, and triangulating on those, using the altitude and distance of the aircraft. Once again, an experienced air-to-ground IR operator would have stopped this train wreck before it ever happened.<br />
<br />
Mistake 3: When the bird lands, because they didn't understand the meaning of the display, they misinterpreted the target as still moving. Again, that data is <i>always</i> in motion unless there is a locked target which is stationary ...which <i>never </i>happened in this case.<br />
<br />
Mistake 4: The investigators of SCU conflated a later sighting of two birds with the original bird sighting. They did this probably due to confirmation bias, since they had already set the idea in their heads that stationary targets were actually moving, due to their erroneous interpretation of the display information, then thinking that the same bird later emerged from the water further down range made sense to them and confirmed their wrong assumption about the motion and speed of the target.. <br />
<br />
<b>Verdict:</b> Debunked. The SCU report concluded that this was an Unknown Aerial Phenemon and an "Unknown Submerged Object" based on misunderstanding and misinterpreting the on-screen data. Once a proper speed analysis is done, there's nothing left to hang that UAP hat on, and once one realizes that they conflated two unrelated sightings to get the "submerged" moniker, there's nothing to left of that, either. It's probably a bird, and in that case, almost certainly a pelican. The investigators who analyzed this video assumed that the on screen coordinates were of the bird or related to the speed of the bird in some way, but I've proven that they are of the land in the far distance and show a constant motion factor even on stationary targets, because there is no target lock. The error of using target coordinates where there was never a locked target simply led to a cascade of errors, and all the mistakes which followed. Does anyone know how many pelicans there are in that area at that time of year??? Nobody checked, I bet. With the coordinates, the analysts could have just plugged the coordinates into Google and found out that they were not of the target but of the far distant land, but they didn't think of it.<br />
<br />
In other words, despite issuing a lengthy scientific-<i>sounding</i> report, the investigators didn't really do their homework and didn't employ proper investigation procedures, nor did they apply accepted, appropriate analysis techniques.<br />
<br />
The SCU investigators didn't know how the coordinates displays work when there is no locked target. They didn't understand infrared heat signatures and their limitations. They probably didn't look up information about pelicans in the area and they <b>certainly</b> <i>did not</i> do the triangulation of stationary ground targets necessary to determine the actual air speed - and <b>we know that for a fact</b>: The speed numbers they stated can ONLY be derived from the ever-changing coordinates (run the math and see for yourself) and those coordinates were of the distant ground not the bird, and were always in motion even when viewing stationary targets because of the actions of the aircraft. <b>Proof that they did not use a triangulated ground target distance measurement. </b>Even when they note in their report that they thought the coordinates were of the distant ground, they still used those ground coordinates to estimate speed instead of triangulating known, identifiable stationary ground targets.<br />
<br />
You could still call it a UAP, of course. It looks like a pelican but that's subjective! I think the innocent mistakes in interpreting on screen data just messed you up and caused you to rule-out the likelihood that this was a bird from the get-go. I'm really sorry, guys! Stuff happens....<br />
<br />
We all make mistakes. But next time, check out the details instead of assuming so much. I'm just an ordinary person, not an important scientist, but even I could immediately see where you went wrong. Mistakes were made. Someone (me) noticed. And that's the end of the story.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
--- </div>
<br />
Here is the 2:02-2:04 part of the video where you can see that it is a pelican: <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyiZobKS3doYrNKWisIwqzMIHNKpJAG2dFbLX-Xgs02LwQQLzLv1h0ZJHTVGlirA8YsC_lzP787LT60TvHTOg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
And here is a zoom-in of the same time sequence. Use the square on the lower right to go full-screen, and the circle on the lower left to repeat... and repeat, until you get it. :)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwlAKDZGFuB608-1GZAOkDwc9DTT1LQjiRcIqckpBT6H_VE42-8Qc3vdnP9XF2p-HDZ7Ug6fJ34ebUtlEjV' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HMzDaYRyDNI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<br />
General video timeline (of the YouTube video):<br />
<ul>
<li>0.22 - bird flies into frame at upper right, with the brief appearance of apparent flapping.</li>
<li>0.23-25 First opportunity to see wings flapping. Yes, wings are hard to see in IR, particularly when viewed from far above and at great distance, but try harder!</li>
<li>1:14-1:16 - Bird crosses identifiable road. This was the critical data point: The coordinates entered into Google map prove that the tracking is of the far distant ground, not the bird. We can then get the width of the road and create X and Y triangulations to estimate the bird's distance from the plane and actual speed, which is far lower than the estimates created from taking the coordinates, erroneously assumed to be those of the bird.</li>
<li>1:27-1:28 Bird crosses another road in the far distance. Yet another set of triangulation points and proof that the coordinates are of the far distant land, not the bird. </li>
<li>2:05 - bird lands in water. IR artifact (white) remains on screen for a moment after this.</li>
<li>2:11-2:13 - Bird is briefly spotted, floating. Note again that coordinates continue to (with the clearly unmoving bird) only because they are readings of the sea level, being read in an arc as the plane continues to turn. We've already proven that these are not measurements of the target. No point in trying to claim that they are otherwise.</li>
<li>2:21 - bird head barely visible here and there, just before operator zooms out at 2:22. I don't know how many times one has to say: You can see the target is not moving (other than bobbing up and down in the waves), the ground coordinates continue to change because the aircraft is now 4 nautical miles down range and the visible seascape is changing with the arc of the airplane's turn. There's nothing more to it than that.</li>
<li>2:22 - Operator zooms out and begins panning.</li>
<li>2:26 - You can see a bird in the air, near the sea level, to the right of the crosshairs.This bird continues to fly and the operator follows it. The bird becomes more clear as it flaps its wings and develops more heat signature at 2:33.</li>
<li>2:36 - Operator zooms in and you can now see that there are actually two birds. Probably neither is the same bird as we see in the first part of the video. There is an illusion of fast motion caused by 1) the foreshortening due to zoom lens usage, which makes the waves seem to be moving fast, even though you can see the target is not, and 2) the ever changing coordinates on the lower right, changes which match the changes of the aircraft coordinates as it turns and moves away, represent reciprocal values of each other. Once again, those numbers are not about the target, because there is NO locked target; they describe the area of sea being looked at, and that is all.</li>
</ul>
<b>UPDATE:</b> Graphic of proper triangulation! I did make an error in the blog, which is corrected in the graphic. Sadly, it does not help SCU any. Bummer. I even went with their 40' height estimation for the bird, which seems too low but whatever...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFQF5_LyunaSALVCWvFRNT753OUIBki18-uTY4yz9A6H5x4skHnLJLghP1Nq16FVWnDMK36-uCa6d0DsRjwhbLozPIngUqPeHwvDE2meQ8QO46wf-Tdmb4LpHozxwF2b2NZ113IxtIccU/s1600/PR-bird-triangulation-graphed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="374" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFQF5_LyunaSALVCWvFRNT753OUIBki18-uTY4yz9A6H5x4skHnLJLghP1Nq16FVWnDMK36-uCa6d0DsRjwhbLozPIngUqPeHwvDE2meQ8QO46wf-Tdmb4LpHozxwF2b2NZ113IxtIccU/s640/PR-bird-triangulation-graphed.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<ul>
</ul>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
---</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><b>DISCLAIMER: </b>Nothing
in this post or blog is meant to suggest that the supernatural or
paranormal does not exist. The fact is, I don't know. All I can do is
look at the evidence to see if it stands up to the test of very simple
scrutiny. If it passes, yay. If it fails, oh well... there's always next
time. Investigators are human. I'm human. We all make mistakes. My
pointing out the mistakes that others make should not be taken to imply
that they are wrong <i>in general</i>, or that the things they investigate are only the product of imagination.</span></span>Chriss Paganihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11644410311763728065noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-814089500477058363.post-42774240468364263842015-06-26T12:10:00.000-07:002015-06-26T14:41:22.899-07:00The EVP as Scientific EvidencePeople love electronic voice phenomena (EVP) for personal validation of paranormal activities. I don't know any ghost hunting teams that don't use them, because you can get an EVP just about anywhere, any time. What is done in every case I've seen is quite unscientific - fortunately, I'm going to offer a remedy for that situation.<br />
<br />
My biggest issue with EVP recordings is the captioning of ambiguous
environmental sounds: It could be the person's fingers moving on the
body of the recorder (which with digital models, that is really loud!),
it could be the person's own subconscious vocalizations, or stomach
gurgling or joints creaking... or a person speaking in another room or
outside the building. Captioning (or otherwise telling someone what to listen for) just triggers the brain's natural pareidolia function: It finds meaning, even when meaning isn't really present. To get a better handle on this, you must read my post about the use of <a href="http://udebunked.blogspot.com/2014/12/evps-echovox-spirit-box-and-what-is.html" target="_blank">Spirit Boxes, EVP recordings</a> and the like.<br />
<br />
We're not talking about hoaxing, here. There is plenty of hoaxing to be found, too, especially on YouTube. We're talking about sincere attempts to find evidence of paranormal activity. Mostly, it's just audio pareidolia -
something the human brain does by its nature. And here we come to the
crux of the problem: In order to rule-out pareidolia, we have to show
that there are scientific controls going on (such as recording in a
soundproof room or box). Nobody does that, although I'd like to help rectify this issue.<br />
<br />
On another page, I've written about<a href="http://udebunked.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html" target="_blank"> how audio pareidolia may still have a paranormal component</a>, but having said that we must also admit that if it is paranormal at this level (psychic) then it still isn't scientific evidence; just more personal validation. And with normal EVP procedures as presented to us, we have <i>only </i>personal validation.<br />
<br />
There's nothing wrong with personal validation, of course, it's just that it isn't scientific evidence. Yes, you are sure you heard something. Do other people hear the same thing without you telling them what to listen for? Is it just your fingers brushing the body of the recorder? Did you breathe-in at that moment, thus making a sound? Did your clothes rustle a bit? Did your joints creak? Did a floor board pop? Did your stomach growl? Did someone say something in another room or outside the building? Don't know? Of course you don't know - nobody can say for certain what a sound might be, when you make open room recordings.<br />
<br />
There are all kinds of sounds going on - even in a "quiet" room - of which you may be consciously unaware. When you play back the recording, those sounds you didn't notice while you were making the recording will suddenly seem paranormal - but only because you didn't notice them when they happened.<br />
<br />
I'm proposing that we stop <i>playing</i> ghost hunter and start developing scientific controls so that IF we get something on a recording, it is no longer mere personal validation but <i>actual</i> evidence.<i><b> It can be done...</b></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Pagani Controlled EVP Experiment</b></div>
<br />
What you will need:<br />
<ul>
<li>Two identical digital recorders</li>
<li>A carry-able soundproof box with a door and battery powered light in it.</li>
<li>A video camera on a tripod.</li>
<li>Computer software that can put two audio tracks side by side for comparison. I am currently using the <a href="http://www.acoustica.com/mp3-audio-mixer/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Acoustica MP3 Audio mixer</a> program. It allows for side by side synching of tracks without changing them, and you can amplify any interesting points within the program, also without changing the original audio. There are probably other programs that do this, too.</li>
</ul>
<br />
You might search "How to build a sound proof box" ...<a href="https://duckduckgo.com/?q=build+a+soundproof+box&t=ffnt" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><i><b>like here</b></i></a>. That's a start. You need a box small enough to be carried by two people (or one) but not tiny. You'll want to make it as soundproof as you can, but also realize that nothing is perfect, which is why we have a control mechanism (the second recorder).<br />
<br />
I'd put a battery powered light in the box, because I want to make it as friendly as possible. - and of course a <b>digital</b> recorder set on maximum quality. Note: Always set digital recorders to maximum bit rate, otherwise you get compression artifacts.<br />
<br />
You will be taking the box an all of your equipment to a proposed haunted location. Hopfully, you will thoroughly scout out the location in advance and determine a relatively quiet area within the proposed haunted zone to place your box.<br />
<br />
<b>Experiment Procedure:</b><br />
<ol>
<li>Set-up the box near the center of alleged haunting activity, if you can. Hopefully, it's fairly quiet, but you will have a control recording to help you sort out environment noise from possible EVP activity.</li>
<li>Place the video camera at a location opposite of where you intend to stand and start the video. </li>
<li>If there is a particular item that is associated with the haunting, or an item belonging to the suspected spirit at that location that is small enough to fit in the box, place that item inside and turn on the light.</li>
<li>Have both recorders in your hand and start them simultaneously. Place one recorder inside the box, and announce, "I'm placing recorder 1 inside the box." Close the door, and announce "I'm closing the box door."</li>
<li>Walk away from your set-up, as far as is possible in the room, while still in range of the video recorder.</li>
<li>Announce your intentions.Something as simple as "I want to communicate with anyone present, and I've placed a box with a device in it to help."</li>
<li>Ask questions! I might begin by asking, "Are there any spirits present?" And "Do you wish to communicate?"<br /><ul>
<li>"Please enter the box, if you can, and see what is inside."</li>
<li>"Please answer my questions using the device inside the box."</li>
<li>If you have an item in the box, say so. "There is an item inside the box in the room, can you identify it?"</li>
<li>"Are you associated with the item inside the box?"</li>
<li>"What is your name?"</li>
<li>"Why are you here?"</li>
<li>"Do you need help?"</li>
<li>"Do you have any messages you would like to give us?"</li>
</ul>
Add any questions germane to the situation. Allow plenty of time between questions for answers. When you are done, thank the spirit for their help. It doesn't matter if you think maybe there's nothing happening: There MIGHT be, and being polite is appropriate even when you don't know if anyone is there.</li>
<li>Announce that you are going to close the session. Walk back to the box and announce when you open the door. Announce when you are removing the recorder. Stop both recordings simultaneously.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b>Post-Experiment analysis.</b><br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Download both recordings to your computer while preserving them on the devices. The preservation part is important in case any questions about sound sources arise.</li>
<li>Line up the two recordings in your audio software so that you can compare tracks.</li>
<li>Look for sounds from the box recording that do not appear in the external control recording. </li>
<li>Amplify as necessary but do not apply additional filters. Everything you do must be logged and the original recording must be preserved. This means that any amplification work you do will be saved as a separate file. </li>
<li>Document everything!</li>
<li>If you get something, share it! Save a separate file of your evidence and play it for several people, one at a time, without giving them clues as to what to hear. Do they hear a message? Do they generally agree as to the content of the message? The video of the session will provide supporting evidence in that case. Don't be disappointed if nothing happens, though. There are so many possibilities: For the skeptic, the only answer is that spirits don't exist, but for more open minded people we realize that it might be difficult for any spirit to understand your instructions or use the equipment provided. And we're not even mentioning willingness to communicate! If you get nothing, nothing is proven. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack; there are too many variables. All you can do is keep trying and keep your controls tight.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
So there you have it, the first EVP experimental method with scientific controls. It's not perfect but it's a whole world away from what everyone else is doing. And yes, it is a lot of work, but think of it this way: You might be the first researcher to provide scientific evidence of hauntings. That would be worth all of your trouble, wouldn't it?Chriss Paganihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11644410311763728065noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-814089500477058363.post-86432438227494422902015-05-05T23:40:00.000-07:002015-08-24T13:42:24.934-07:00Roswell Slides Alien is Just A Mummified Child<b>UPDATED! </b><i>The original article on the Roswell Slides alien from the night of the big show appears below. Following that there are two updates, the last of which is conclusive. This author turned out to be right about <i>everything</i>...not that <b>anyone</b> noticed. I was particularly disappointed with some big name paranormal podcasters (<strike>who will not be named here</strike>- changed my mind, at bottom) who got a heads-up on this the night of the pay per view, but waited several days for people like Nick Redfern to finally get a grip on the information before coming out with it. Congratulations on backing the celebrities over the little people, guys.</i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjjhWhWScgSd_chJtLIWbN2bbQDIQv8DQcuXbGsulKKdoq8IDwgeAH9FBPWa3PP6ofbSYOr3Acz2pypA4aM2qnI-GCFCz4FgMxgV7w7WNCgp-iCmOTeGNs7QwcKg8iINi77ujQxSzJtfg/s1600/zer8zKd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjjhWhWScgSd_chJtLIWbN2bbQDIQv8DQcuXbGsulKKdoq8IDwgeAH9FBPWa3PP6ofbSYOr3Acz2pypA4aM2qnI-GCFCz4FgMxgV7w7WNCgp-iCmOTeGNs7QwcKg8iINi77ujQxSzJtfg/s1600/zer8zKd.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Yes, I admit it, I got suckered into watching the live event known as Be Witness! In my defense, how else am I going to write about happenings in the paranormal world? So this is what the hype was all about: After more than a year-long build up to a pay per view event in Mexico City, the infamous Roswell Slides were revealed. And what you see above is what we got. The image appears to be a child, maybe two years old, turned into a desiccated mummy. The museum card on the glass case is conveniently unreadable (but WOULD BE READABLE ON THE ORIGINAL SLIDE! see below), but a quick web search finds several examples of child mummies, and you'd be hard pressed to find any difference.<br />
<br />
Just as an example of a mummified child:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqKRdDaYMOZ3ozqVdcDzj3XQ74dfZPcG3S2kw-LvSPMiGdbVuyXM69FHAU4lkuX01TJdGmXwrRVfTYUw2HoC358_MEnEHoNh5WGOjTSmh9mvWbo8ysqdzc5hapi9z-PPMw1nMft9aJkeE/s1600/GettyImages-454258456.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqKRdDaYMOZ3ozqVdcDzj3XQ74dfZPcG3S2kw-LvSPMiGdbVuyXM69FHAU4lkuX01TJdGmXwrRVfTYUw2HoC358_MEnEHoNh5WGOjTSmh9mvWbo8ysqdzc5hapi9z-PPMw1nMft9aJkeE/s400/GettyImages-454258456.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Licensed from Getty Images</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
But you can find many other examples on the web. You may look at several below before you decide that yes, this is indeed a mummified child. And well before the big over-hyped reveal, enough had leaked out that others had written about child mummies, suspecting that this was the case. <a href="http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2015/03/is-this-mummy-famous-alien-in-roswell.html" target="_blank"><b>For example</b></a>.<br />
<br />
For the "alien" mummy of the Roswell Slides caper, a simple increase of brightness and contrast reveals a mummy in a double museum case:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRgIZajteUdx2Ze5K5S_EUlqYkFeBcYh6HD-5C5nt7C2noCuahKx07XdDMaAocMAji7VFMKWlwfeLhRxHuUgNiVsYOSn-dPe-IxFkijudCWvwvBrC9MxDxx9scuIVM3RMezG5a87FNkHE/s1600/mummy-bright-dark.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRgIZajteUdx2Ze5K5S_EUlqYkFeBcYh6HD-5C5nt7C2noCuahKx07XdDMaAocMAji7VFMKWlwfeLhRxHuUgNiVsYOSn-dPe-IxFkijudCWvwvBrC9MxDxx9scuIVM3RMezG5a87FNkHE/s400/mummy-bright-dark.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
You can see the white bracket runs up the middle of the double museum case. The child mummy is in the foreground, while in the other case on the far side of the bracket you see an animal head and two snakes.<br />
<br />
Now the build up in the pay show was endless.... they retold every tale of aliens and speculative ideas about them that they could think of, droning on for hours. I was impressed that the audience didn't start booing at some point, because it was rather clear they were stalling.<br />
<br />
When the reveal finally came, we saw what you see in the first image at the top of this page: It looks to be a mummified child in a glass case in a museum. There's nothing particularly weird about it. Oh, that didn't stop them from making something weird out of it though....<br />
<br />
Expert after expert appeared to point how how the proportions were all wrong for a human .... ... adult male. That's the ONLY comparison they made. It looks like a child, but they never once made that comparison. Instead, over and over they would show us the skeleton of an adult male human and point out that the "alien" was so different from that. Yeah, it is - because it's a kid, not an adult male!<br />
<br />
The stupidest one was when they brought up the guy who pronounced this "alien" to be some type of reptile! Yeah... I couldn't make this shit up. He said it couldn't' be a mammal, like us, because it lacks mammary glands. ...It also lacks skin, eyeballs and internal organs, so that probably means it came from outer space too, right? (The Getty photo from a museum above also "lacks mammary glands" and for the same reason). Maybe all these mummies are reptiles then, and we just thought they were human mummies.<br />
<br />
Okay, maybe the guy who said the child mummy was some kind of lizard because he couldn't see mammary glands on the shriveled corpse wasn't the stupidest one. Maybe it was the anthropologist who said it had more ribs than a human. Not because you can count extra ribs, but because he inferred ribs you cannot see, based on (AGAIN) the proportions of an adult male human and that therefore some of that mummified flesh must have more ribs under it, etc.<br />
<br />
Let's be real here: They went out of their way to avoid comparing their evidence to a mummified child. Didn't come within a mile of that, in fact. They only compared it to an adult human male. Period. To me, this strongly suggests that they knew very well that it was a mummified child but were hoping their audience wouldn't notice that. ...And that's almost criminally scummy, in my opinion.<br />
<br />
VERDICT: Nothing to see here. Except maybe scam artists at work. The slide is a real and old, but it doesn't show anything weird or unusual - just a visit to a museum that had a mummy. The two "alien" slides came from a pack of slides taken on the original owner's vacation. To their credit, these hucksters admitted that much. So normally there wouldn't be any reason to see this as anything other than another souvenir of that trip - until you insert promoters of crap into the picture.<br />
<br />
The only argument to the contrary would be something along the lines of: If these were part of that trip (and they were) then why did the old lady hide them in the box lid? This seems fairly straightforward: The mummy picture is the only photo that polite conservative society of the 1950's might find objectionable/gross. She probably hid them because she didn't want to show them to visitors but didn't want to throw them away because her husband took them. Everyone has vacation pictures they'd rather not have others see. What's the big deal? Nothing.... except (again) for the insertion of pecuniary purveyors of hucksterism into the story. And <i>that</i> is a story unto itself.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
---</div>
Here are some more mummified children ...er... aliens. Yeah...<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAYLui9X0YSG8MVlP0H5hX4KluEHguctcNhOyQkUSKZae3E4rYyJDv-zF1RbeAyodol6kX47hBh95-8xwMUZu9KR8HbxTItCL4l3qlh48ARnJatvI8P2PMAYheEUFNFJv4GluXSCmalMyk/s1600/hjh.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="311" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAYLui9X0YSG8MVlP0H5hX4KluEHguctcNhOyQkUSKZae3E4rYyJDv-zF1RbeAyodol6kX47hBh95-8xwMUZu9KR8HbxTItCL4l3qlh48ARnJatvI8P2PMAYheEUFNFJv4GluXSCmalMyk/s1600/hjh.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.museumsecrets.tv/cmsImages/BabyMummies_Gallery_002_copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.museumsecrets.tv/cmsImages/BabyMummies_Gallery_002_copy.jpg" height="179" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://ancientneareastdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/img_0177.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="198" src="https://ancientneareastdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/img_0177.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfwJEsqWTVILg3GuYXGeTNCc1zZJ8DCVSpPIzYJN-b3IiTxawM535MHC0wHblHsUKGNYZdhXpVg6A7mtqLdfiQcMeBx62vJt6KRe4aMDQCZfyKUz7xmwNo_HsIq5KveNGbUYFNZSpVHg/s1600/NMH+Mummy+child.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfwJEsqWTVILg3GuYXGeTNCc1zZJ8DCVSpPIzYJN-b3IiTxawM535MHC0wHblHsUKGNYZdhXpVg6A7mtqLdfiQcMeBx62vJt6KRe4aMDQCZfyKUz7xmwNo_HsIq5KveNGbUYFNZSpVHg/s1600/NMH+Mummy+child.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://wfpquantum.s3.amazonaws.com/images/photostore/large/17032018.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://wfpquantum.s3.amazonaws.com/images/photostore/large/17032018.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqKRdDaYMOZ3ozqVdcDzj3XQ74dfZPcG3S2kw-LvSPMiGdbVuyXM69FHAU4lkuX01TJdGmXwrRVfTYUw2HoC358_MEnEHoNh5WGOjTSmh9mvWbo8ysqdzc5hapi9z-PPMw1nMft9aJkeE/s1600/GettyImages-454258456.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqKRdDaYMOZ3ozqVdcDzj3XQ74dfZPcG3S2kw-LvSPMiGdbVuyXM69FHAU4lkuX01TJdGmXwrRVfTYUw2HoC358_MEnEHoNh5WGOjTSmh9mvWbo8ysqdzc5hapi9z-PPMw1nMft9aJkeE/s400/GettyImages-454258456.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
And last and probably least, once again, the "Roswell Slides alien" mummy child:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisZSeQD_Nm_mP5GCEUJbHSYWfkiGbzL6wFTA20BUzHDwlTRBprN_KXGVv9lYDEerb_GyUPLEgywg3i09Lsq_nXSFzC6ROABFqnOxWB_vfUNV1K7fd77RP2w5k4wJrlGTssZZxvD_SE64Y/s1600/A3hbhqp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisZSeQD_Nm_mP5GCEUJbHSYWfkiGbzL6wFTA20BUzHDwlTRBprN_KXGVv9lYDEerb_GyUPLEgywg3i09Lsq_nXSFzC6ROABFqnOxWB_vfUNV1K7fd77RP2w5k4wJrlGTssZZxvD_SE64Y/s400/A3hbhqp.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
By the way, there IS information on the museum card. I did a little Photoshop curves and channel isolation. I can't read it because the highest resolution version online is still pretty small at only 1200 pixels wide (a bit less than ~1Mpx), but those who have the original slide can do so. At 1200 pixels, the letters on the card are only 1 to 2 pixels wide - not enough to read anything, but the slide will have about 24Mpixels of data, <b>making the card quite readable</b>. And I'm guessing they probably did read it (because anyone with a little Photoshop knowledge can enhance to this level), but didn't want you to know about it. Or put it another way; they know exactly what it is and where it is/was - and chose to hide the truth. In my opinion.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEZ5XV_fNwaA8BWvSYrXI9otInU60FkPgMcYWNAAODE0Q4NMZ_4JPlz_qi20WG415eqROHS1_3ZmlbyhCgfwe5ESe6gj-NRdEGw31LineB0CfYIWXS-pM3zftqOIFnZgiNDSNSSHJR5s4/s1600/alien-museum-card.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEZ5XV_fNwaA8BWvSYrXI9otInU60FkPgMcYWNAAODE0Q4NMZ_4JPlz_qi20WG415eqROHS1_3ZmlbyhCgfwe5ESe6gj-NRdEGw31LineB0CfYIWXS-pM3zftqOIFnZgiNDSNSSHJR5s4/s1600/alien-museum-card.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
---</div>
<b>UPDATE May 7, 2015:</b> Well, this stuff has now been reproduced <i>everywhere</i> using other methods and analysis, but I still see defenders, vainly trying to hang on to the illusion. These all revolve around experts who looked at the low res photo and made judgments about its structure (compared to an adult male). I've covered that and won't repeat myself. The only additional points I've seen are along the lines of, "Yeah, but the alien has giant eyes!" ... No it doesn't. The promoters' graphic illustrations and animations have giant eyes, but look again at the photo. There is no justification for that in the photo. It has normal child-sized eye sockets. Seriously, <i>look at it!</i><br />
<br />
And this brings me back to the fact that the museum card would readable with a full resolution scan of the slide. Are you seriously telling me they put all that time and money into having CGI animations done - animations in which they gave the skeleton giant eyes and gray-blue skin without any justification in the source material - but they didn't bother to have a full resolution scan made? Seriously? That lacks even a shred of credibility, unless you say they didn't have a full resolution scan made because they knew they would be able to read the museum card and that would have spoiled the fun. <i>That</i> I can believe.<br />
<br />
As I predicted, you have the usual debunkers calling the photo a fake - because they are misreading it. I knew that was going to happen because I too had trouble interpreting the visual data at first. Once I realized it was a double case with a center support bracket, it all fell into place. But for the debunker crowd, who always assume everything is fake, there is little interest in accurate analysis. Tl;dr it's not fake, just a relic of a couple's vacation where they visited a tourist trap and saw a mummy. That's all.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE May 13, 2015: </b> Thank you to <a href="http://radiomisterioso.com/" target="_blank"><b>Greg Bishop of Radio Misterioso</b></a> for his <a href="http://radiomisterioso.com/2015/05/12/the-roswell-slides-explained/" target="_blank"><b>show about the solving of this mystery</b></a>. (<i>ADDITIONAL</i>: here is the <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radio-misterioso/id444424848?mt=2" target="_blank"><b>iTunes podcast link</b></a> since we're currently slamming his web site into non-existence)I listened to the podcast last night and was delighted to hear my predictions come to fruition, thanks to a team of much more dedicated UFO researchers. The show itself was pretty messy with lots of people talking over other people, but it's worth listening to, if you want to learn about how the mystery was solved - and also how beneath contempt the promoters of the Slides have been.<br />
<br />
I was the first to cover the event, but I lost interest in pursuing what was obviously a museum mummy. But others did not, and they got a better image than the one offered to the general public, and they read the museum card. <i>As I predicted would happen.</i> At the time it was photographed, the mummy was in the possession of the National Parks Service at <a href="http://npshistory.com/nature_notes/meve/vol8-1f.htm" target="_blank">Mesa Verde National Park</a>. The card says "MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY" on the title line. The bottom line says that the the mummy was donated by a Mr. Palmer of San Francisco, California in 1938. He had originally removed it from a historical site but was now returning it. It's a mummy of a 2 year old boy. A HUMAN CHILD. Well, I got everything right - EVERYTHING - (and first) but kudos to those who took this home. They did their work despite threats and accusations of fraud hurled by the shameless and scummy promoters of this hoax. I'm glad they did that because the threats and vicious attacks probably would have stopped me from going further, had I had any inclination to do so. You can read all about their work at <a href="http://www.roswellslides.com/" target="_blank"><b>The Roswell Slides Research Group</b></a>.<br />
<br />
The group explains how anyone can read the card posted on the scammer's own web site using <a href="http://smartdeblur.net/" target="_blank">Smart Deblur</a>. I just used Photoshop to enhance a bit. Try their method and figure it out for yourself. Here's my slide card using just the Smart Sharpen filter with motion blur setting in Photoshop (you have to do it twice for X and Y axes, but Photoshop will do it), and taking the yellow channel and some adjustments, because some color channels are less blurry than others!. Thank you again to the Roswell Slides Research Group people. Good job, man.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjISRbiYYwIMoRuGIUCTk9TvPvjy2jN4snRgfhLgjsb-qySobArQo0crgEXF7RuGERC41efvcK7rGtjZrmj7eOyQbMXi0eXBacS0IRGR8iIEgURdohbXr8wsattWrf_hcSFV_gAlubEOtU/s1600/pagani-roswell-slide.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="346" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjISRbiYYwIMoRuGIUCTk9TvPvjy2jN4snRgfhLgjsb-qySobArQo0crgEXF7RuGERC41efvcK7rGtjZrmj7eOyQbMXi0eXBacS0IRGR8iIEgURdohbXr8wsattWrf_hcSFV_gAlubEOtU/s640/pagani-roswell-slide.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I'm glad the hoaxers lost this one. I'm sure they planned to make a good living for years to come off of their hoax. But now the truth is out there. Honestly, though, it's not over. The promoters will continue to make money off of their hoax (just maybe not as MUCH money as they were going to make) and true believers will continue to shower them with cash and keep them in business. It's just human nature; people want to believe so much that they are willing to ignore conclusive proof. So there's nothing to cheer for, here. Congratulations to those who dug up the facts, and shame on the con men who foisted this upon us - but the hoax machine will grind on, because that's just a sad part of human nature. Another sad part is how all the podcasters and bloggers held back on this information, waiting for it to be endorsed by celebrity UFO speakers instead of just confronting the facts head on. That celebrity-worship is yet another sad fact of human nature. It might help you get those celebrities on your shows...maybe... but you might not be providing the best service to your audience. I'm still glad that the Roswell Slides group did what they did. I would never consider going on radio shows or fighting the fight with the true believers. That's not my thing. I don't even like blogging about this stuff. It was a dirty job and they stepped up to the plate and did it. For that, I am immensely grateful.<br />
<br />
<b>EDIT June 1, 2015.</b> On second thought, I'm going to name the podcaster culprits who kept this information from their listeners: The guys of <i><b>Mysterious Universe</b></i>. I used to like them. I used to be a Plus subscriber. When I did this analysis the night of the event, I posted it to their web site and a day later to their Facebook page. They DELETED both my posts. <b><i>Deleted!</i></b> I later noticed that they had also blocked me from ever posting again on the FB page. TAKE NOTE: They deliberately kept their listeners in the dark until Nick Redfern was ready to come on their show and talk about the whole thing, springboarding off of the Roswell Slides Research Group's work. <i>Un-fucking believable.</i> I consider this unforgivable and proof that they don't really care about facts, just entertainment. Needless to say, I am no longer a subscriber. The Mysterious Universe guys should be ashamed of themselves.Chriss Paganihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11644410311763728065noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-814089500477058363.post-26027330701480602092015-01-22T19:56:00.001-08:002015-06-13T11:43:35.169-07:00Stop The Bigfoot Madness, PleaseIt amazes me that TV producers can create a show about hunting for Bigfoot. It's not like Bigfoot sightings have the bulk or evidence behind them that other paranormal-type phenomena have.<i> </i>So I don't know why other shows about the paranormal feel they need to include Bigfoot "experts," unless it's because these guys write books and so they are willing to come on shows. We've also heard the latest twist: Bigfoot is actually an inter-dimensional being! Why? Backward logic: We've never found a shred of physical evidence that Bigfoot is real, so we're going to explain that away by saying Bigfoot comes from another dimension and therefore doesn't have to eat, leave crap lying around, or die. I can't address that one; it seems like a last-resort kind of thing. "Sure we don't have any evidence, and yeah, a real forest ape kind of creature would need a breeding population of thousands to exist and we'd find dead ones, so since we've already decided Bigfoot exists, it must be interdimensional." Whatever. I'm only going to address Bigfoot as a real, evolved creature of *this* world...<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgig0PG2qICvBGGs1qUkg0dOLbcYvJUeVyE_9XK8_c2XCQzZlDKRckxr6a-t2SfjEcOZ-HKYEGdvKsVo9Hx8rYMnhL0dLZ3KDHKh9r054pUadPBzRXMX4ND2rAmG_78r9vED15QXWISdIc/s1600/bear-bigfoot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgig0PG2qICvBGGs1qUkg0dOLbcYvJUeVyE_9XK8_c2XCQzZlDKRckxr6a-t2SfjEcOZ-HKYEGdvKsVo9Hx8rYMnhL0dLZ3KDHKh9r054pUadPBzRXMX4ND2rAmG_78r9vED15QXWISdIc/s1600/bear-bigfoot.jpg" width="287" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Bigfoot"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Bigfoot sightings, at least as far as real flesh and blood (not interdimensional) creatures, fall
into two categories: Bears that are misidentified, and hoaxes. That's
it. If decades of nothing but hoaxes, misidentification and no actual evidence for their existence can't convince you, I don't know what will, but we'll go over some of the facts anyway...<br />
<br />
A) Nobody has ever found a dead Bigfoot. This is not insignificant. There is no real, living animal that hasn't had a body turn up here and there. This is often the way we find out that some obscure animal we thought was extinct is actually still around. Everything that lives, dies. If there are no dead Bigfoot creatures, it's only because there are no Bigfoot pseudo-apes that are alive, either. It's important to note, I suppose, that basic biology requires several thousand animals to maintain a breeding population. Apparently there are Bigfoot creatures all over America - and the world - but nobody has found a dead one or a family group. It's always one-off sightings by panicky city folk who haven't spent enough time in the woods to know what they're looking at.<br />
<br />
B) All the videos are hoaxes. All the "scientific" evidence, like claims of finding DNA or hair or feces, are hoaxes. People have confessed to them or have been caught and exposed, and we know that's true.If Bigfoot existed, getting a clear video wouldn't be a problem. Anyone can go in the woods and get videos of bears. Heck, you can get them in most cities, or at least the suburbs. Finding Bigfoot turds (and DNA with them) wouldn't be a problem, either. A giant animal that would have to consume tons of food and leave tons of waste behind? The forests should be covered ankle-deep in Bigfoot crap ... unless the animal doesn't really exist, of course.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0BuiEXaUSo6c5YgWH2LxrnfEM2egxZOnzrVYicyriK34VaLbx_oIF77XeWXeBlgLDOVLw5EXou-5ZzWCjfqMVUHIDcjNnVNbTL8xx1ldQybGzsYESCmenFUrDPLZqlxwmIerH_TXKivw/s1600/bear-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0BuiEXaUSo6c5YgWH2LxrnfEM2egxZOnzrVYicyriK34VaLbx_oIF77XeWXeBlgLDOVLw5EXou-5ZzWCjfqMVUHIDcjNnVNbTL8xx1ldQybGzsYESCmenFUrDPLZqlxwmIerH_TXKivw/s1600/bear-1.jpg" width="263" /></a></div>
<br />
C) Bigfoot sightings that aren't hoaxes, are bears. It's the illusion of high strangeness that makes Bigfoot reports seem credible to some. Think of it this way: in a county of hundreds of millions of people, some of them are going to have close encounters with bears - every single day. For almost all of them, the story will be; "I was driving down the road and a bear ran out in front of me, and I almost hit it!" ..And that's the end. You'll never hear that one on the news. But all it takes is one person ..maybe one out of a hundred thousand bear encounters, to say "Hey a Bigfoot ran across the road in front of me!" - and now we're supposed to think this is what really happened.<br />
<br />
MOST people know a bear when they see one, and so you never hear about their encounters. The rare person who lets their imagination and predisposition construct a cryptid encounter in their minds - <i>they</i> are the ones you hear about.<br />
<br />
What's wrong with these people? Nothing, basically. Some of them may have overactive imaginations. Some of them may just harbor a deep longing to see a Bigfoot, or anything that's strange. If they said they saw a leprechaun instead of a Bigfoot, they probably wouldn't have the instant support group gathering around, telling them that what they thought they saw was the real deal. If a person longs to see a fairy, they might talk themselves into seeing one but they will be more likely to (correctly) question their memories and assessment of the situation, due to the lack of a supportive network of people who will rally around them..<br />
<br />
Beyond that: apparently <i>some</i> people are expecting bears to look like cartoons or what you see in the zoo. There are lots of bear encounters all over the world, so it is probably only a tiny minority of people who misread the situation. That's all it takes, though..<br />
<br />
The diversity of wild bears is amazing. They can be tall and skinny or short and fat, and everything in between. They can have tiny ears, short muzzles. If you can think of it, there are bears that have it. In fact, we should probably break down some things most people don't know about bears:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Bears in the wild are not like zoo bears. They can be fat or very
thin, short or long muzzled. It's just the genetic variation that is
natural in the wild.</li>
<li>Bear coats are often uneven in color. Especially around shedding
time, it's not unusual to see a bear that is brown on top and black
around the waist. It makes it look like it's wearing pants. This is just
a difference between top coat and undercoat color, though.</li>
<li>Yes, bears do walk around on hind legs, and they do look ape-like
when they do that. For bears, it is easier to go around on all fours
most of the time, but when they have an injured front paw (common
because bears fight each other ) they will spend extended periods walking
and even running on two legs. </li>
<li>Bears kill stuff. Yes, even black bears where people swear up and
down they just eat berries. That's not true. Black bears like berries a
lot but they will kill and eat small animals as the opportunity arises.</li>
<li>An injured bear screams like a human being. Perhaps it's
Hollywood's fault that people think bears sound like Godzilla. Their
voice range is very similar to an adult human voice range. This
is very cringe-inducing if you encounter an injured bear - or you hunt them.</li>
<li>Bears sometimes lose their ear shells in fights, or to frostbite. Bears also can go bald. The same diseases that cause racoons and coyotes to
lose their hair and be mistaken for Chupacabra can give bears a bald
face, head, or even whole body. There aren't a lot of bears with baldness or no ears, but they have the maximum likelihood of being misidentified. Not that you need that much: As I pointed out, of the many bear encounters every day, it only takes a tiny percentage of panicky, crypto-minded people to keep the Bigfoot myth alive.</li>
</ol>
When you know this stuff, you can readily see how bears get mistaken
for forest apes on a regular basis. I think the only reason it doesn't happen more often is because only a minority of people are of a mind to think a big hairy beast is a Bigfoot.
Misidentification is just too easy, and the difference between "I saw a bear" and "I saw a Bigfoot" comes down to mindset and expectations.<br />
<br />
SOURCE: Outdoor person, here. I grew up in the woods of the Pacific
Northwest (where Bigfoot is supposed to be common), and have hunted bear for
food. That was my old life. Even though I don't do it anymore, I am an expert tracker and hunter. Everyone I knew, growing up, hunted. I've seen dozens and dozens of
bears in the wild, including way too up close and personal, including
bears with patchwork coats and semi-bald ones - and many walking/running
on two legs. But not one Bigfoot. I think Bigfoot experts are mostly
armchair outdoorsmen who haven't spent enough time in the woods to know a
bear from some cryptozoological character. Even when you get a story where someone is called an "experienced outdoorsman" - when you read the story you find out that the guy's vast "experience" consists of going on weekend camping adventures a couple of times a year. People who really live in the woods and have spent their lives there never see a Bigfoot. And that fact alone should convince you that Bigfoot does not exist, at least as far as it being a literal forest ape of some sort..<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2SEd9iPBaPMuOo9TmPzKbiqmZaT-YaS5XkoyPAPuzpHWv8x4UTIHncaRiJ-Gyg6ct6xYpI1au448Httij2p_fDQcGcp8iuIanC26P8FQ3NtGNKpbmp1GQZQsNSvbckmP64EBWvu4uoo8/s1600/bald-bear.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2SEd9iPBaPMuOo9TmPzKbiqmZaT-YaS5XkoyPAPuzpHWv8x4UTIHncaRiJ-Gyg6ct6xYpI1au448Httij2p_fDQcGcp8iuIanC26P8FQ3NtGNKpbmp1GQZQsNSvbckmP64EBWvu4uoo8/s1600/bald-bear.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A bald bear - it happens</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There is much more, of course, like the fact that this imaginary creature doesn't fit anywhere in the food chain. Are they predators? What do they kill? Are they herbivores? Why aren't they seen grazing? There's just no place you can fit them that makes any sense. In the meantime, actual apes and chimps - some varieties of which are quite endangered and have low population densities - can easily be found in their natural habitat, in part because we know what they eat so we know where to look for them. Everything has to eat. If Bigfoot existed, it would be eating something... LOTS of something, since they're supposed to be huge. Even a low population density of Bigfoot animals would be consuming tons of whatever it is that it is supposed to eat - and thus would be easy enough to find.<br />
<br />
And finally, if you have a weird sighting, why on earth would you jump to a cryptozoological character as the explanation? It's like; all the Chupacabra sightings where there were photos or the creature was found, have turned out to be raccoons or coyotes with mange. The people who took the photos or found the creature swore up and down that it was Chupacabra, but the evidence proved them wrong. At some point you have to say, "okay, witness testimony is unreliable, and we have solid evidence that they're just plain wrong with these reports." But no, we keep jumping to the weirdest explanation possible.<br />
<br />
I've already pointed out the fact that these are bears. Bigfoot is never seen except in areas with bears. No bears = no Bigfoot sightings. But even if you were to insist that it wasn't a bear, but an ape-like creature, the next logical explanation would be an ape that escaped from a circus or zoo. A supernatural cryptid would be the absolute bottom of the list, yet that's where Bigfoot believers go first.<br />
<br />
VERDICT: Debunked. Debunked over and over again. Bigfoot is a mythological creature, like the unicorn. The only differences: 1) Bears exist and people mistake them for apes when they're running around on two legs, and 2) Bigfoot hoaxers abound. People seem less interested in hoaxing unicorn sightings, but knowing human nature, I wouldn't be surprised to find that becomes a thing in the future. All that is actually needed is a supportive community of people (especially people who write books) to say that unicorns are real, and they will gain the same level of respectability as Bigfoot.<br />
<br />
After decades of Bigfoot hunts, big rewards for evidence of Bigfoot's existence, and an almost endless parade of hoaxers, the verdict is undeniable. If you keep believing in Bigfoot, you must be getting something out of it. But there are plenty of real mysteries out there to explore and research, where your high strangeness affinity might be more productive. Or, you know, go shoot a unicorn and have your picture taken with it. Bigfoot or Unicorn: The odds of success are the same.<br />
<br />
Bottom Line: There are many people who make a living off of promoting the existence of Bigfoot and other cryptozooids. Without the professionals hawking their books and lectures, Bigfoot would be considered as real as unicorns and leprechauns. Alas, there will always be cynical people lining up to fleece the public, and we just have to live with that.<br />
<br />
I should also note that Bigfoot is not in the same class as other phenomena like ghosts, apparitions, and hauntings, because we know what people are seeing with Bigfoot sightings. There is a huge pool of paranormal experiences related to spirit hauntings, and their cause is hard to pin down or explain - but the pool of Bigfoot sighters is very <span style="font-size: small;">small<sup><b><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[1]</span></b></sup></span>, easy to explain, and they fall into just two categories: Hoaxers and people who don't know a bear when they see one...Unless you want to go to the latest fallback position that Bigfoot is an interdimensional being. I don't even know how to calculate the odds of that being true but if that were the case then people are wasting their time hunting for them because they would pop in and out of our reality on a random basis.<br />
<br />
<sup><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[1]</span></b></span></sup> How small is the pool of sightings keeping the Bigfoot myth alive? According to <a href="http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/09/infographic-shows-3313-sightings-of-bigfoot-in-92-years/" target="_blank">several sources</a>, there have been a total of 3,313 Bigfoot "sightings" in North America in the last 92 years as of this posting. That's just 36 sightings per year, on average. To put that in perspective: The Bigfoot myth is being kept alive by just 0.000001 percent of the population. Bigfoot sighters are rarer than people who think they are in constant telepathic communication with Venusians, or people who claim they can fly using the power of their minds. In contrast there are<a href="http://www.whyte.org/bears/conflict.html" target="_blank"> millions of encounters with bears</a> in North America every year.<br />
<br />
Other sources of information:<br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/2013/10/01/why-bigfoot-is-unlikely-only-if-you-know-what-unlikely-means/" target="_blank">Why Bigfoot is unlikely, if you know what unlikely means</a><br />
<a href="http://news.discovery.com/animals/endangered-species/10-reasons-why-bigfoots-a-bust-140526.htm" target="_blank">10 Reasons why Bigfoot's a Bust</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
------------------------</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>DISCLAIMER: </b>Nothing in this post or blog is meant to suggest that the supernatural or paranormal does not exist. The fact is, I don't know. All I can do is look at the evidence to see if it stands up to the test of very simple scrutiny. If it passes, yay. If it fails, oh well... there's always next time. Investigators are human. I'm human. We all make mistakes. My pointing out the mistakes that others make should not be taken to imply that they are wrong <i>in general</i>, or that the things they investigate are only the product of imagination.</span></span>Chriss Paganihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11644410311763728065noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-814089500477058363.post-40062016174721617862014-12-02T17:32:00.000-08:002016-10-27T22:20:27.890-07:00EchoVox, Spirit Box, SCD-1 and what is WRONG with all of ThemMost ghost hunting TV shows use EVPs (Electronic Voice Phenomena) as a staple for demonstrating the existence of paranormal entities. Everywhere you look, people are asking questions in dark places while running a digital recorder, Spirit box or EchoVox. When the recording is played back, there are often answers to their questions.<br />
<br />
Before we look at any of the video evidence, though, I would like you to ponder a question: If these are audio recordings of sessions talking to spirits, WHY are they <i>always</i> posted as videos? I'm serious about this. Just stop and consider that question. You will find that it is very important as we go on from here.<br />
<br />
It's become very popular to mix digital recording sessions with devices and smartphone apps that "assist" in communication. This method is so quick and easy - and works every time - how could anyone resist? Most of what is on YouTube today is probably from a device or app. Again, though, audio devices that mysteriously require a video to work correctly... <i>hmm</i>...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>EchoVox: Pre-packaged Assisted "Communications" </b></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlw0AUdFOVB6dpbTL_xA9WsTCO0_yJX-phxFm2IhPOg40KuP_kovCP8BZCwjI4u7uCdYAffo_SlV7fpj1jq9xZ_z-mCCXCsNnkZs1-CCpgsLdmgHLRgwHE1lahx6l9VzrnG_gDUkJxTC8/s1600/echovox-frontend.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlw0AUdFOVB6dpbTL_xA9WsTCO0_yJX-phxFm2IhPOg40KuP_kovCP8BZCwjI4u7uCdYAffo_SlV7fpj1jq9xZ_z-mCCXCsNnkZs1-CCpgsLdmgHLRgwHE1lahx6l9VzrnG_gDUkJxTC8/s1600/echovox-frontend.jpg" width="225" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The EchoVox app - latest version</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
EchoVox is a smartphone app that has a database of phonemes. Phonemes are parts of words, and with 24 consonant phonemes and 20 vowel phonemes you can make every word in the English language and most of the words in other languages as well. EchoVox has all of these, and it will play those phonemes as soon as you hit the Start button. It is claimed by its maker in rather vague terms that EchoVox mixes the phonemes with information from your device's input, whatever that means. Are they trying to say that the phonemes of the app's database are somehow altered by environmental sounds...say, from the microphone? Well, EchoVox plays a barrage of phonemes even if you
don't give it access to the phone's mic. I know that, because when I first tried it, I didn't
give it access to the microphone and it still played the phonemes. The microphone only
goes into effect if you turn Echo on. If you don't do that, it won't
even ask permission to access the microphone. Based on microphone on/off tests, the phonemes are just played randomly. The app uses 4 "channels" of phonemes, but I think that the channels just have speed differences plus different levels of distortion, and that's all.<br />
<br />
When you have a lot of phonemes being thrown at you, some of them are
going to sound like words. There's just no getting around that. There are all the phonemes of the English language bombarding your ears in both male and female voices. Words <i>will </i>be heard. So, on what basis are we thinking that the
phoneme collection - which <i>is</i> what Echovox produces - represents paranormal communication?<br />
<br />
That claim is based on "accurate answers" to questions. Sure, the phonemes are random, and that's <i>all </i>that is really here, but if you get the right phonemes to make words, and those words are the correct ones to answer your questions, then there MUST be something to it, right?<br />
<br />
EchoVox has become really big in amateur paranormal research. You'll find
thousands of videos on YouTube, and there are even several Facebook
groups devoted to Echovox and populated by over one thousand
"serious investigators." The developer has also added variations on this theme such as BlackVox, which is the same thing but with a pentagram and scarier-sounding voices included. Yeah, I'm sure that helps.....<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Adventures in Assisted Spirit Communication</b> </div>
<br />
I paid for this app because after all the claims, I had to see it in operation for myself. So even if I felt kind of stupid about it, I did the usual things: I asked if anyone was present, what is their name, do they have any messages. That sort of thing. I recorded all the questions and answers. (EchoVox will record everything for you, IF you turn the "Echo" feature on. If you do that, I'd suggest setting it to 0 delay or the echoing of your own voice will drive you crazy. You can also just use a digital recorder. I went for the EchoVox internal recording feature at first - and I was excited by the results. It did seem like there were intelligent responses to my questions, and even though I knew that the device deluged you with phonemes, and I knew about audio pareidolia, it seemed like maybe there was something there. I guess I wasn't <i>that</i>
interested in the "how" - mostly I only cared about the positive
results -- until it was proven to me that it was just audio pareidolia.
Here is how that happened....<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
I transferred some of my best stuff to a portable digital recorder so
I could play my fabulous results for all my friends. At first, I would
tell them about all of the incredible, true answers I got - and then
they would listen to the recording - sure enough, they heard them too!
Confirmation!<br />
<br />
But then, I played it for another person without telling him what to
listen for, and he just got nonsense sounds - couldn't pick out much of
anything except a word or two he mentioned, which I had not heard on
that recording. So then I told him what I got and asked him to listen
again with headphones: This time he heard my answers. Success! ..... So maybe... yeah.... EXCEPT for an important detail I should mention: I
played the wrong file. I had several on there, and I played an Echovox
session with <i>different</i> answers (according to what I had heard).
I told him what I heard on the file EVP-1 but I played
EVP-2 instead. Yet he heard the answers I had told him to listen for! They
were the "wrong" answers for the file he actually listened to, though.<br />
<br />
Then I tried my files with other people without telling them what
answers to listen for. Some heard answers and some didn't, but the ones
who heard answers to my questions never heard the same answers I heard.
Not one of them.<br />
<br />
As a last test - on myself, I put the audio on my computer and cut it
up into separate questions and answers; one file for each question; one
file for each answer. Then I mixed them up so questions were paired
with different answers.... and I <i>still</i> thought I heard correct answers. So audio pareidolia was definitely confirmed.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>TL;DR Audio Pareidolia</b></span> </div>
<br />
Audio pareidolia is a very
powerful effect. It happens because the brain doesn't
really process a whole group of sounds, determine they are words and then match
them with your brain's database for conscious understanding. That would be <i>way</i> too slow: A conversation would
be over before you figured out what the first sentence said. Instead,
your brain picks up a piece of a word, a <i><b>phoneme</b></i>, matches it with its
database of words according to context (expectation), and then delivers that
product (a whole word or sentence) to your conscious mind.<br />
<br />
This is the
reason we all have times when we were very sure that person A said X when
they actually said Y. And we would swear up and down that they actually
said the thing that they didn't say - because that is what we really heard.
We just heard it wrong. They said what they said, our brain grabbed onto the wrong phoneme, or completed a phoneme into the wrong word, and we consciously heard the other person say something that they didn't actually say.<br />
<br />
Audio pareidolia is also why you may think you hear the phone
ring when you're in the shower (when it's not actually ringing) or why you might think
you hear someone say your name in a conversation that turns out to not
be about you at all. Your brain takes fragments of sounds, latches onto them based on a preconception of what meaning might be derived, <i>then delivers the word(s) that it THINKS might be present to your conscious mind.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
EchoVox (and its cousins) is an app that is designed to take advantage of this phenomenon of brain function: Echovox has a database of phonemes in several voices, and the phonemes
(parts of words) are spit out randomly, at whatever speed you select in
the 4 bank speed section. By default, this is quite fast - like a bunch of people yacking away at top speed. The microphone input has NO effect on these
phonemes. They are just random. You can prove that for yourself by
turning the mic off. If you can't do that on your device (it's just the Settings app, scroll down to EchoVox and tap it, then turn off the switch that gives permission to access the microphone) then
plug a dummy mic into the jack. It won't change the phoneme barrage at all;
it's exactly the same. So that's how EchoVox works; a big phoneme soup! And
you can't help but hear words in that pile of word pieces - because phonemes are what words
are made of and the human brain only needs pieces of words to deliver whole words to your conscious awareness. Last but not least, you will hear the words you are expecting to hear - the words that are contextually appropriate - because
that is how your brain works. <b>I wish there was more to it than that,
but there isn't. YOU CAN CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THIS FOR YOURSELF - READ THE 'DO IT YOURSELF TESTING' SECTION BELOW.</b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Spirit Box</b> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFSBeYBZ1exTdxYumKF-fndZHiJNK4FOossgDrFzf9gAGwyGKKPNai_gQ59NrrCI1WvMMBNuMGH1aNRuRqEDiTC_mHtW-Hahr2t0CN_adfaxZgk58HNaock0gESIR1MPhpkosRcCv_088/s1600/310UJ9AJuoL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFSBeYBZ1exTdxYumKF-fndZHiJNK4FOossgDrFzf9gAGwyGKKPNai_gQ59NrrCI1WvMMBNuMGH1aNRuRqEDiTC_mHtW-Hahr2t0CN_adfaxZgk58HNaock0gESIR1MPhpkosRcCv_088/s1600/310UJ9AJuoL.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Spirit Box (technically P-SB7 by ITC) is an older device working on the same principle, but derives its phonemes from radio broadcasts. With the Spirit Box, what you have is a little handheld scanner that rapidly scans FM (or AM) radio frequencies. Unlike a police scanner (which may be more familiar to some) the Spirit Box doesn't stop when a signal is picked up, it just keeps going. It's blowing by radio station after radio station. The TV show Ghost Adventures loves this little radio scanner.<br />
<br />
I probably don't have to tell you after all we've been through, but what that means is that you're getting phonemes from the radio stations; bits of words here and there. And now that you understand the basics of audio pareidolia, you know what is going to happen, right? Yep. So EchoVox supplies a full set of phonemes in multiple voices while the Spirit Box relies on phonemes from rapidly scanned radio stations. And like EchoVox, the "proof" comes in the form of videos - because they need to have captions so your brain will know what to hear.<br />
<br />
And just to make the madness complete, Spirit Box now has an app version, called <b>SCD-1</b>. It works exactly the same way, the only difference being is that the app version draws phonemes from Internet radio station podcast feeds. There's no practical difference and the effect is the same. SCD-1 stands for "Spirit Communication Device, number 1" - but you're not getting spirits. Like Spirit Box, you're getting actual people talking on radio stations, and then your brain creates an artificial meaning in order to give you the illusion of communication. That's the only thing that it does. If you enjoy fooling yourself, you can have some fun I guess, but there must be a cheaper way to do it. The SCD-1 is outrageously, almost criminally expensive.<br />
<br />
Back to my earlier question: Why does everyone take audio recordings and put them in a video? At this point, you should know the answer. Your brain needs an expectation trigger in order to hear specific words and phrases, so you won't hear their amazing messages from beyond the grave unless you are told what to hear via captions - or possibly the person telling you what is said and then replaying the "message" so you'll get it. It's just
a trick of the mind because the human brain works that way (with a caveat which I will place in the footnotes).<br />
<br />
I mean, think about it: If you linked me to a lecture by Stephen
Hawking or... I don't know, an interview of Mariah Carey - would you
feel the need to tell me what to hear in order for me to "get" what they're
saying? Of course not, because they're speaking real words (in Stephen's
case, we're not even talking about a human voice but an electronic one - and STILL no captions are needed). The reason
these phoneme cannon recordings need to be captioned is because
they're just phonemes, LOTS of them, not actual words, and the brain
needs an expectation trigger in order to know which phonemes to lock-in on to
turn into words and phrases.<br />
<br />
Oh, I have to give a dishonorable mention to <b>Ghost Adventures</b>, here. If you use this device in an area with lots of radio stations, it sounds pretty much like EchoVox; a barrage of phonemes but with bits of songs being played on those stations, here and there. On the other hand, if you take this device out to the desert of eastern Oregon, or some similar place where the stations you can pick up may number in the zeros, you'll just get a steady, rhythmic whoosh-whoosh-whoosh sound - the scanner locking to each frequency for a tenth of a second, then moving on to the next where it does the same - and so on. On Ghost Adventures, the sound is clearly edited. <i>All you have to do is use a <b>Spirit Box</b> once to realize they don't sound as portrayed on the show.</i> On the show, it's a very formed, pattern click-click-click static until there's a voice giving a message. That really never happens with this device, for the reasons stated, and cannot happen in real use. So they're editing out the phonemes from other radio stations. And the people involved KNOW that's going to happen, which is why the star of the show mutes the device as he speaks - to cover the edit. Of course, this is also the tv show that recently tried to sell a spider descending on a thread from the ceiling as something supernatural, so they're pretty much beneath contempt and appear to have no ethics at all.<br />
<br />
<b>Bottom Line:</b> With apps such as EchoVox and devices such as the Spirit Box, there's no input from spirits or
anything else as far as we can tell, it's just all the phonemes of the English language
being thrown at you, and the ones that meet your expectations for an
answer will stand-out in your mind. They'll probably even seem louder
than the background chatter. The human brain does that. All of the "answers" are coming from your own mind via
your brain's natural inclination to make intelligible words out of
minimal input. And of course, if you have to tell someone else what to hear in order for them to hear it too, it isn't real. <i>I guess if you have spirits that must be spoken with, you'll have to find yourself a good <b><a href="http://udebunked.blogspot.com/2014/11/tv-show-dead-files-and-problem-with.html">psychic medium</a>. Probably, anyway; I have a longshot alternative explanation in the footnoes.</b></i><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Random Example Video</b> </div>
<br />
So now that you know the truth, let's put this to the test! I don't want to hear any crap about how it's just my opinion. I'm talking about well-documented science of how the brain works, but you won't be satisfied until you see this effect in action. I made a random choice of an "amazing" spirit communication - and the one I chose was chosen only because it came up in the first page on YouTube and is very short...<br />
<br />
To do this, you will need to follow my instructions. It's something I already mentioned, though, so this is just a reminder. You're going to watch a video of the EchoVox app in action. Except you MUST NOT watch it the first time through. Get a pad and paper, then start the video and turn your head away. DO NOT LOOK AT THE VIDEO. Write down every word you think you hear (not counting the "investigator's" words, of course - just stuff from the stream of phonemes). Since you have 4 banks throwing phonemes blaring at you, every once in a while two or three of them will come together by sheer coincidence to make an actual word or phrase. There are only 44 phonemes that make up every word and every name, so when you are being hit with a barrage of them, SOMETIMES you'll get real words. Even so, maybe you won't get anything. Your brain needs to pick a context in order to infer meaning. But if you are thinking that ghosts are talking to you, then maybe that is all the context you need. Remember, no looking! ....Yes, I know, one of the captions shows up in the preview here. I can't help that. Just try to listen for words and forget about what you're told to hear...<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/S_aC6E__xdQ" width="560"></iframe>
As I said, I picked a short one so I wouldn't be torturing you too much, but you can do this with ANY of these videos of EVP sessions, regardless of the device involved. Just look away from the video the first time through and write down your own impressions. Sometimes (as happened here at one point) the person who is doing to the recording will give you an audio cue as to what answer is expected - so you'll hear that. But if you go back and listen carefully, the word you thought you heard isn't really there. It's just a phoneme. Your brain did all the work and filled in the details.<br />
<br />
Now, if you like, you can go back and watch the video, and see what you were supposed to hear, according to the person who posted it. Did you match them very often? No? Of course not, because their "answers" were based on their own expectations for answers. Your expectations are different, so your answers will tend to be different. But with them telling you what to hear, you'll probably clearly hear their messages now. Try this with as many videos as you like, but you're going to find out fairly quickly that audio pareidolia is all that is going on, here. Sorry.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Old-School EVP Recordings</b> </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoCvHjF3tN6pzQuNOppXc40G88Y3ZDvyxWIyp36K_S0GcLISGYaXASVU2Dp4ruRrlk292Kq8tbbOqdTY-FUGTtg6Qf3lChv79TAqoIuLoDjnQLI71BvJ1V9hhCWXzLT0lPR19sRxV__5Q/s1600/71nYlskzZhL._SL1500_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoCvHjF3tN6pzQuNOppXc40G88Y3ZDvyxWIyp36K_S0GcLISGYaXASVU2Dp4ruRrlk292Kq8tbbOqdTY-FUGTtg6Qf3lChv79TAqoIuLoDjnQLI71BvJ1V9hhCWXzLT0lPR19sRxV__5Q/s1600/71nYlskzZhL._SL1500_.jpg" width="116" /></a></div>
<br />
EVPs are obtained by other methods, too. In paranormal TV shows, you're more likely to see someone using a digital recorder, like the one shown above. They will hold the recorder up to their mouth, ask a question, then immediately stick the recorder out into the air and wave it around, like they are interviewing a moving yet invisible guest. For non-TV paranormal teams, digital EVP recordings are a staple.<br />
<br />
The problem with that is that these recorders have variable sensitivity and when you stop talking the audio gain instantly goes to maximum - so they pick up any noise whatsoever. Contact noise (like moving your fingers on the body of the recorder) will be the loudest things that get recorded. Of <i>course</i> there will be noises during that moment of "silence!" There's more, too: the rustling of your clothing as you move, clearing your throat, barely audible mumbling you might do subconsciously, stomachs growling, someone speaking in another room or outside of the building.... You won't be aware of any of these things when they happen, but the recorder will pick them up. With playback, now they seem supernatural, because you didn't notice them when they happened. Add audio pareidolia and magically you have a message from dead people.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Do-It-Yourself Testing</b></span> </div>
<br />
Digital recorder videos can be analyzed the same way as EchoVox videos: Just <b>listen to them without looking at them</b>. Write down any words you think you hear, and when you are done then and only then watch the video to see what happens. Unless the investigator also tells you what to hear in addition to the captions, you won't hear it. Except in perhaps a rare case: Sometimes the investigator's question will have such an obvious answer that your brain will immediately know what it is supposed to "hear." Sometimes the investigator is simply muttering the answer (perhaps subconsciously) and giving a real message that way. Sometimes the recorder will pick up someone speaking in another room. With EchoVox, on top of pareidolia you'll also have phonemes come together in the random assault on your ears that accidentally form words. But mostly, it's all pareidolia. This simple test will debunk 99.9 percent of EVP videos out there. And you can prove that yourself.<br />
<br />
If there are any true EVPs out there, then <b>this is the test to find out:</b> Have a number of people listen to the audio only, with no cues as to what they are supposed to hear, and have them write-down (not speak) what they think they heard. Look at their notes after you are done. If you give them suggestions as to what to hear, you've killed the test: You're just trying to trigger their pareidolia mechanism. SO NO CUES!<br />
<br />
If all of them agree on a phrase being spoken, it might be something. Maybe: <i>If </i>the answer wasn't obvious from the questioner's context, and <i>if </i>you can show that it wasn't the investigator muttering or a real live person in another room or outside the building speaking. Super mega bonus points if the message is not only intelligible to <i>everyone </i>but also contains information that can be verified but couldn't possibly have been known to the investigators or test subjects.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, if your test subjects can't agree, it's because audio pareidolia is in operation and they don't have enough context to trick their brains. That's all.
<b>And congratulations, you just conducted your own scientific investigation!</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>VERDICT:</b> Debunked. Devices like Spirit Box and apps like EchoVox are just phoneme generators. They take advantage of the fact that the human brain is pre-programmed to latch-on to any shred of a word, and turn it into a real word or phrase - and this process happens entirely subconsciously, so people think they really heard something. Digital recorder EVPs are <i>not</i> entirely debunked but they also typically rely on captioning ambiguous environmental sounds to trick your brain into hearing words. Obviously, if it is real then nobody will need to tell you what to hear. Otherwise, there's <i>nothing</i> paranormal going on - to a 99 percent certainty. My only reservation will be contained within the footnotes.<br />
<br />
There <b><i>is</i></b> something scam-like happening though with the various apps and devices, because there is a moneymaking opportunity which takes advantage of a <i>known</i> brain phenomenon. That is, "known" in the sense that anyone who has done any research at all knows about it. The average member of the public probably doesn't know, though, and that's where the scam comes in. And to the people who make money off of that, all I can say is <i><b>shame on them. </b></i>These developers are walking a very fine line between running a legal scam and outright fraud.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>FOOTNOTES:</b> <br />
(1) I <i>did</i> say there was a caveat, although it's a big long-shot I feel obligated to mention it since apparently I'm the first human on earth to notice this: Here goes... If we must, let's talk about pareidolia and all the special messages you see on YouTube: Ghost boxes, Echovox, and all that - all that must be captioned in order for other people to "hear" the special message that the original person heard.<br />
<br />
Obviously, the words are not really present in the sounds - that's why you have to have captions. When you hear a message, it's only in your head. But did you ever ask yourself (apparently nobody does); w<i>here did the message in your head come from?</i> ...Well, your own brain, right? Right. But where did your own brain get the idea to make a particular choice and give you a plain message from gibberish?<br />
<br />
Let's consider the use of psychic mediums for spirit communications. Now of course the skeptics here will all say it's bullshit because they think everything is bullshit. They used to spend time debunking quantum mechanics, too, until they had to shut up about it. Ever notice how skeptics never do a mea culpa? They never admit when they're wrong, they just go on to the next topic? Skepticism is a no-lose proposition; you just say no and it didn't happen until you start looking foolish then you shut up about it and find something else to ridicule and belittle. Being a skeptic is a great because you get to feel intellectually superior to the rest of the world and you never have to say you were wrong about anything, ever, nor do you have to do any actual work beyond negating everything anyone else says.. But I digress.... Skeptics will say any kind of spirit communication can't happen because spirits don't exist and nothing exists but the material world, and so forth. On the other hand, Dr. Gary Schwartz, professor of psychiatry and surgery at the University of Arizona says <a href="http://www.afterlife101.com/Medium_Communications.html" target="_blank">mediumship is real</a>, and <a href="http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html" target="_blank">he can prove it</a>. What if he's right?<br />
<br />
So if Professor Schwartz and others are right, then it is possible to make psychic contact with the spirits of the deceased. At least, *some* people can do it. Are you with me so far?<br />
<br />
Only certain people have that knack, and it's a small minority of a minority (I think most of the people who *think* they are psychic mediums are probably fooling themselves). BUT... if it's real, even for a tiny percentage of people - <b>even only one person</b>, then there is a mechanism behind it; a way the conscious mind can interface with the spirit world. And if there is a mechanism, then we all have it but most of us are unable to latch onto that stream of information and pull it up into our consciousness (like every human has a voice but few can sing opera). At best, it would be a tiny subconscious influence for most people.<br />
<br />
At this point, the argument should be a real no-brainer but I will spell it out: Spirit communication is possible via some brain (third eye/pineal gland?) interface for everyone (must be true if there is even one person EVER in this history of mankind who did it) but most people can't bring the information stream up to the level of conscious awareness. Pareidolia happens at the subconscious level: The brain creates whole words and phrases out of sounds, and that happens before your conscious mind hears anything. Spirit communication is also potentiated at the subconscious level. It's the perfect intersection of non-conscious processes; where any spirits could influence the words your brain manufactures from random sounds, and thus deliver a message.<br />
<br />
Not sure how you would prove or disprove that other than delivering message content that can be subsequently verified but could not have been known to the receiver. ..But there it is. By the way, <b>I do NOT authorize anyone to use this argument to sell their pareidolia wares</b>. Since I invented it, I own it. I will come after you if you do that! :) It's intellectual property rights at work. ...Others are free to quote me, but you must give correct credit to this author. Sorry, but I just want to make sure my own intellectual work isn't used for evil purposes.<br />
<br />
<br />
(2) More information on pareidolia in general and audio pareidolia in particular:<br />
<a href="http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/articles/Formant%20noise.html" target="_blank">Paranormal Research: EVPs - things you should know</a> <br />
<a href="http://theness.com/roguesgallery/index.php/skepticism/audio-pareidolia/" target="_blank">Audio Pareidolia at The Rogue's Gallery</a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia" target="_blank">Pareidolia on Wikipedia</a><br />
<a href="http://bridgetownparanormal.com/2009/08/audio-pareidolia-did-you-hear-that/" target="_blank">Bridgtown Paranormal Group on Audio Pareidolia</a> <br />
<a href="http://blogs.psychcentral.com/panic/2012/01/what-does-pareidolia-mean-and-why-is-it-dangerous/" target="_blank">PsychCentral</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thecollapsedwavefunction.com/2012/09/30-second-science-pareidolia.html" target="_blank">Visual and audio pareidolia examples</a><br />
<br />
<br />
(3) If you want to do the world a big favor, and dispel some ignorance, save a link to this page and post it every time someone puts up a new EVP video. Everyone should know the truth - it's only fair.<br />
<br />
<b>EDIT: Confirmation from the other side.</b> The "other side" in this case, being the builders of these devices. Now, it's difficult to believe that any of these hawkers of paranormal gadgets actually think they work - but you'd expect them to keep their mouth shut about it. It's how they make their living, after all! Nevertheless, <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a23563/ghost-hunting-gadgets/" target="_blank">one gadget developer came clean to Popular Mechanics in an email</a>: Bill Chappell (inventor of the Ovilus and many other paranormal gadgets) explained his view on the paranormal in a blunt email saying "I do not believe in Ghosts or Spirits."<br />
The inventor says he's built hundreds of devices and performed countless experiments over the last decade trying to understand the phenomena of EVPs and instrumental transcommunication. "The unmistakable conclusion," he wrote. "It is us, we are the ghosts."
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
------------------------</div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>DISCLAIMER: </b>Nothing in this post or blog is meant to suggest that the supernatural or paranormal does not exist. The fact is, I don't know. All I can do is look at the evidence to see if it stands up to the test of very simple scrutiny. If it passes, yay. If it fails, oh well... there's always next time. Investigators are human. I'm human. We all make mistakes. My pointing out the mistakes that others make should not be taken to imply that they are wrong <i>in general</i>, or that the things they investigate are only the product of imagination. </span></span>
Chriss Paganihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11644410311763728065noreply@blogger.com56tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-814089500477058363.post-70232092577740076812014-11-18T12:35:00.000-08:002016-08-06T12:01:20.698-07:00Show "The Dead Files" and the Problem with TV Psychic MediumsIn my previous post, I discussed a potential <a href="http://udebunked.blogspot.com/2014/11/tv-show-ghost-stalkers-full-body.html">paranormal entity caught on video by the Ghost Stalkers</a> tv team, which is led by paranormal investigator John E. L. Tenney. It occurred to me that these ghost hunting shows are lumped together when there are actually stark differences, which led me to examine another variety of paranormal inquiry; the highly entertaining (but dubious, as we shall see) show, The Dead Files.<br />
<br />
The show has an an interesting duo, and they are definitely entertaining together: You have Steve DiSchiavi, a retired New York City police detective who went on to an acting career, appearing in a short film "Stake Out" before being cast in The Dead Files. His job is to interview the people involved and do background research on the location. He is joined by Amy Allan, who now bills herself as a psychic medium (except on a <a href="http://www.travelchannel.com/shows/the-dead-files/articles/meet-amy-and-steve">page on the Travel Channel web site</a>, where she is called a <i>physical</i> medium. Really? Physical mediums are known for moving objects, remotely playing trumpets, stuff like that).<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[see footnote 2]</span> Although scrubbed from her ImDB database, a little Google research tells me that she had previously appeared in episodes of the fictionalized ghost hunting TV show, A Haunting, in at least one of those she played a scientific paranormal investigator doing research on locations rather than using psychic powers. The episode everyone can a see is "A Haunting in Georgia" - you can Google that. <a href="http://spiritbearparanormal.com/2011/11/02/the-dead-files/" target="_blank">Other blog posts</a> on other sites mention additional roles she's had. But before that she was in Season 1, Episode 4, Cursed. I have the DVD set.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[see footnotes]</span> So she's basically an actress. I don't know anything more about her. Here's a sample of her work from the episode we will review in this post:<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="342" src="http://www.travelchannel.com//content/tccom/en/vplayer.embedded.html/etc/sni-asset/travelchannel/videos/0/02/022/0224/0224799" width="560"></iframe>
The set-up of the show is Amy does a walk-through of the haunted location, accompanied by her husband (or former husband, depending on what database you believe) and camera man, Matthew Anderson.<br />
<br />
At the end, Amy the psychic and Steve the detective get together with the people involved in the haunted location, where they present their findings. It's very dramatic. Steve always has some tale to tell and Amy has some dramatic hits (and some misses) to present. Everyone is amazed.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Evidence</b></div>
For the purposes of this discussion, I will confine myself to the episode filmed at The Barbee Hotel in Warsaw, Indiana. The air date was November 15, 2014. The clip I posted above is from that episode, and you can find more at <a href="http://www.travelchannel.com/shows/the-dead-files/episodes/intolerance">http://www.travelchannel.com/shows/the-dead-files/episodes/intolerance</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Analysis</b></div>
The only paranormal things that one might look at are the impressions that Amy gets as a psychic medium. We see those in the filming of her walk-through, where she throws out a bunch of stuff. It's very cut-up and we can't even tell what she's trying to describe, half the time. Obviously, not everything makes it into the final cut, but it's fair to say she has misses and hits - maybe (as the show portrays) more hits than misses. "Hits" are combined with her pronouncements about the presence or evil entities, and such - which aren't really "hits' because they can't be verified by anyone. And this is the first problem we have: There is no way to judge her accuracy from what is presented on television. She looks good, but you'd expect the producers to make her look good, otherwise they'd have no show. So the one and only thing that could be analyzed for possible paranormal activity, really can't be analyzed at all. We can only say she looks good on the show, and that's it.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Problem with TV Psychic Mediums</b></div>
This brings us to a critical point when dealing with shows that feature psychic mediums: Even if they have a huge number of hits, where did that information come from? Is it from a paranormal power, such as psychic mediumship, or are the hits coming from something much more ordinary and unexciting?<br />
<br />
The show's premise is that Amy's psychic walk-through and Steve's mundane plowing through library files and old newspaper clippings happen separately, without any contact between the two. This is obviously necessary, since if Amy were told what Steve found, her "impressions" would be ...well, quite UNimpressive!<br />
<br />
So the premise is that they don't communicate. Okay, let's buy into that for a moment. Does that mean her impressions must be obtained by paranormal means? No. It could be that they are - that's what they're selling. But one thing I noticed about this episode: <b>ALL</b> of Amy's "hits" - the stuff everyone oohs and ahhs about at the end, can be found on the first page of Google by just typing in "Barbee Hotel Warsaw Haunted."<br />
<br />
Did Amy do that before her walk-through? I'm sure she'd say no - so then we have to consider her personal credibility..<br />
<br />
Amy Allan - like all psychic mediums - has a reputation built solely on her ability to obtain "hits" - that is, accurately describing a situation or thing without having apparent direct knowledge of it. Her "credibility," then, stems not from her personal integrity but from her performance.<br />
With that in mind, we can readily see that Amy Allan has every incentive in the world to hit that Google search button before she does her walk-through, and basically no incentive not to (other than the incentive to not get caught). There's just no upside to Amy being honest in this situation, and no down side to her cheating.<br />
<br />
That doesn't prove that she cheats, of course, it just shows that she has no reason in the world to <i>not</i> cheat. And when you add that to the fact that her hits can be found online without any real effort, there is strong reason to doubt her. I would add too that this is only "cheating" in the sense that the show's premise is that she has no information about the location.<br />
<br />
When you watch the various ghost hunting shows, you should keep this in mind no matter who is involved. Scientific investigators and psychic mediums with TV shows are coming at this issue from opposite directions, and they have diametrically opposed motivations driving them.<br />
<br />
Oh, and about her sketch of the entity haunting the upstairs - and what
the people involved made of that... .and GOOGLE. On the first page of
Google using the search term shown above, you get a reference to Al
Capone having stayed there. That's who her sketch looked like, and she
was claiming at least three entities haunt that location: The one on the
main floor was the original owner, she said, and there was another more
ominous man upstairs, which she had a sketch artist render for her.
It's Al Capone. But the the people involved in the haunting didn't pick
up on that in the big reveal; they thought the sketch looked kind of like
the original owner of the place (Steve brought a picture with him). This
made Amy shift gears and change her claim: now it was all really just
one entity, using different disguises on different floors. Google didn't
work so well for her this time - she had hoped to get credit for
finding Al Capone haunting the place - but since the people thought the
sketch looked kind of like the original owner, it was declared a "HIT"
anyway. So it was a win for Amy, even though her skills really failed
her. Oh well. <br />
<br />
<b>VERDICT: </b>There's nothing to see, here. If Amy is using psychic abilities to obtain her information, she's doing it the hard way: Google can be utilized without any travel, any hotel reservations, or any walking around in a haunted house. And we haven't even mentioned potential information obtained from the cast and crew. Google explains everything. Except maybe Amy's propensity for finding evil entities everywhere she goes. That is contrary to the experience of just about every other ghost hunter you'd want to give any credibility to. She is especially fond of "finding" evil <i>men</i> - men are just evil in Amy's world. She never finds a friendly one or even an indifferent one. Men are evil. Amy has told us so..<br />
<br />
Since we're on the topic, I will add that I am
acquainted with a psychic medium: William Becker of <a href="http://www.paranormalinsights.net/" target="_blank">Paranormal Insights</a>. Personally, I consider him to be a man of integrity, and I tend to trust his
impressions. This trust comes from my assessment of his own moral
compass, and his work. But he doesn't have a TV show, he isn't under the
same pressure to get hits, and he isn't out to wow anyone. He also gets things wrong and there's no TV producer standing by to edit out those flops.<br />
<br />
I'm not dismissing the field in its entirety. Psychic impressions are very hard to verify and essentially impossible to establish scientific controls for, so it's one of those things that you can either take or leave, depending on your persuasion. Just bear in mind that professionals with TV shows have <i>nothing</i> to lose by deceiving you. Never forget that.<br />
<br />
Let's look at this question by examining two intellectual propositions:<br />
1) TV production companies are driven to bring you the absolute truth. They would never lie or fake anything because truth is their highest priority, ratings be damned. Or...<br />
2) TV production companies only care about ratings, because that is how they make their money. They want the show to have maximum ratings and the longest possible lifespan. If the truth gets them that, that's great. If they have to lie, cheat and fabricate, oh well... see the first sentence of this proposition.<br />
<br />
As a logical, rational and intellectually honest viewer, which proposition seems most likely correct to you? <br />
<br />
If Amy Alan wants to sit down with me for a reading, and she comes up with something you couldn't find through Google or cold reading techniques, then I will tell you that. Mega bonus points if she comes up with something even I don't know, but can verify through research. I'm totally open to the idea that Amy or someone else out there might be the real deal - and it if ever happens I will definitely tell you. Otherwise, it's just an act. Sorry.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Footnotes:</b><br />
1. <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4560120/board/nest/234225080?ref_=nm_bd_2" target="_blank">IMDB discussion of Amy Allan's appearance on Season 1, Episode 4 of A Haunting</a> - this episode is titled Cursed. Amy plays a "researcher" and in this episode she actually demonstrates how she researches a location (<b>a private home</b>) before she goes there. This episode will answer any questions one might have about Amy's ability to research private homes and develop a profile of them so she knows what to talk about when she goes there.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><a href="http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/a-haunting/episode-4-season-1/cursed/195712/" target="_blank">First Aired: November 18, 2005</a> - is about a private home in Tucson, Arizona. In this episode, Amy the researcher shows you how thoroughly she researches a private home without actually going there. It's probably why they scrubbed this and all other previous acting credits from her IMDB.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Doesn't this make you wonder about why they might have scrubbed Amy Allan's previous acting credits from her IMDB and Travel Channel profile? Is it just that they don't want you to know that Amy Allan is an actor? Or is it that her appearance here reveals too much about her real technique?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">2. Strangely, some fans have decided to argue with the definition of physical medium! Amy has tried to create a niche for herself by changing the meaning of a term that has been around for over 100 years, Well, it doesn't work like that, Sorry, Amy (and fans) you're just wrong and making stuff up doesn't help your credibility at all.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"> </span><span style="background-color: #eeeeee; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">"Physical mediumship is defined as
manipulation of energies and energy systems by spirits. This type of mediumship
is claimed to involve perceptible manifestations, such as loud raps and noises,
voices, materialized objects, apports, materialized spirit bodies, or body
parts such as hands, legs and feet. The medium is used as a source of power for
such spirit manifestations. By some accounts, this was achieved by using the
energy or ectoplasm released by a medium, see Spirit photography.[24][25] The
last physical medium to be tested by a committee from Scientific American was
Mina Crandon in 1924.</span><br />
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif; font-size: 9.0pt;">
<br />
<span style="background: #EEEEEE;">"Most physical
mediumship is presented in a darkened or dimly lit room. Most physical mediums
make use of a traditional array of tools and appurtenances, including spirit
trumpets, spirit cabinets, and levitation tables." (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediumship#Physical_mediumship" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>)</span></span><br />
<div>
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">I could add multiple references to this but those not satisfied should just try doing their own research. If you enjoy the show, that's great, enjoy the show! But let's stop trying to re-write history in order to make the show more believable, okay?</span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
------------------------</div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>DISCLAIMER: </b>Nothing in this post or blog is meant to suggest that the supernatural or paranormal does not exist. I believe that there is something there, but I cannot prove it. All I can do is look at the evidence to see if it stands up to the test of very simple scrutiny. If it passes, yay. If it fails, oh well... there's always next time. Investigators are human. I'm human. We all make mistakes. My pointing out the mistakes that others make should not be taken to imply that they are wrong <i>in general</i>, or that the things they investigate are fictional. I named this blog "U Debunked It" to be cute, but I actually hate the debunking mindset. One should go into every investigation with an open mind. It's the only way to find out what is really there. That is what I do. </span></span></div>
Chriss Paganihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11644410311763728065noreply@blogger.com136tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-814089500477058363.post-39657058934162657172014-11-14T12:40:00.003-08:002015-02-27T09:47:08.223-08:00TV Show "Ghost Stalkers" Full Body Apparition Video Analysis(Updated 19 November with new information)<br />
<b>(Updated 20 Feb 2015 with new revelation from John E. L. Tenney, conclusions in BOLD -</b> old analysis remains as strike-through text to keep the record straight<b>)</b><br />
The clip from "Ghost Stalkers" -
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="360" id="dit-video-embed" scrolling="no" src="http://snagplayer.video.dp.discovery.com/883552/snag-it-player.htm?auto=no" width="640"></iframe>
Or you can go to the Destination Discovery page here: <a href="http://www.destinationamerica.com/tv-shows/ghost-stalkers/ghost-stalkers-video/ghost-apparition-caught-on-camera.htm" target="_blank">http://www.destinationamerica.com/tv-shows/ghost-stalkers/ghost-stalkers-video/ghost-apparition-caught-on-camera.htm </a><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Enhance & Zoom</b></div>
I did my usual analysis of the video. It took awhile to get just a clip of the figure, which I enhanced at maximum brightness to help us understand what is going on here:
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dy2R14ufW3Xb-H9LR0edaLkG55H-a_zhHbfStOpGxYwRaZ8lHMQgta6NIbMZfge4lbHzzXoYmdLEC29mNZobQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
NOTE: Use the little square-ish box at the lower right of the video to make it full screen. The clip is very short! You'll have to watch it multiple times to get a sense of what is going on here.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Analysis</b></div>
When we watched the show, it was pretty dark and hard to see. This enhanced excerpt, however, gives us a definite figure. Unlike my previous analysis of a claimed <a href="http://udebunked.blogspot.com/2014/10/old-wheeler-hotel-ghost-caught-on-video.html">ghost caught on video</a> by an Oregon paranormal team - but which disappeared in the frame by frame analysis, there is a figure here: You can see moving legs, arms, etc. The shape, although lacking detail, seems clearly human. What was it?<br />
<br />
There are three possibilities:<br />
1. They faked it.<br />
2. It's a person<br />
3. It's an apparition/spirit/paranormal event captured on video.<br />
<br />
Did they fake it? It's a TV show, after all - but if they ever got caught doing that it would be the end of them. It's important to know that John E.L. Tenney, the star of Ghost Stalkers, is a legit paranormal investigator whose whole life work hinges on his credibility. <strike>It's extremely unlikely that he would be a knowing party to a hoax - to the point where this explanation is not believable</strike>. <b>(Turns out that while it may not have been a hoax, John Tenney confessed in an interview on a skeptic podcast that he thought it was a homeless guy, despite the fact that he sold it on the show as a possible paranormal entity - LINK TO JOHN's OWN WORDS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE)</b>. If there was any hoaxing going on, my vote would be for it being perpetrated by a bored crew member: They would be the only people who would know enough about the positions of the static cameras to be able to get in and out without detection. Or there is also Chad. He was my prime suspect from the beginning. Sorry, Chad, if it wasn't you.<br />
<br />
Is it a person? Well, it has all the characteristics of a living being. If it's a person, then it <i>might</i> be someone who sneaked into the building to perpetrate a hoax. And if that were true, they also did a shitty job of it. This tiny clip is all there is to show for their "work." Really, who would do that? But that only speaks to a person who is not part of the show perpetrating a hoax. A crew person is another possibility but I'm told the crew people aren't even there at night; they just set up the equipment and leave. After my conversation with John, this seems unlikely. But again, it could be a person who was accidentally caught on camera, in which case John should know better than to suggest a paranormal cause. I can only go by his word at this point. <br />
<br />
Is it an apparition? It has a very solid form and even though it's as gray as the back wall, you can see moving arms and legs. Watch it about 10 times. Or more. It looks more like a solid thing - a human being, than a spirit - but I can't draw a firm conclusion about this. <b>(UPDATE: My inability to draw a conclusion was based entirely on John. E. L. Tenney's equivocations on the subject. His words led me to think there might be something here. <i>My apologies to all!</i>)</b> What would a ghost look like? I would expect something a little less solid but that's only an expectation.We'll have to have additional information. With what we have, a person seems the <i>slightly</i> more likely explanation (except for a detail or two). <strike>However, a captured apparition is a definite possibility!</strike><br />
<br />
Oh yes, the detail! Or two.<br />
1) Well, John. E. L. Tenney, the legit investigator of this show, is adamant that there was no sound as the figure walked by; no footsteps, whereas one could hear Chad walking around. Okay, that makes it interesting. I'd like an audio comparison of Chad walking in the hall versus this figure, so we could see if this is a big deal or not.<br />
2) The figure was never seen on any of the other cameras, nor by Tenney, Chad or the crew. This is odd. Evading detection by the cameras would be tricky. One may imagine ways to get in and out of the building without being seen, but how would a person pass in one direction down that hallway - toward the room where Chad was located at the time - and never be seen coming back from that direction or anywhere else? The world wonders....<br />
<br />
4) Finally, an actual person would be walking around in total darkness: The light you see is infrared, recorded by an infrared camera. This is John's big selling point; the thing he reminded me about in emails when I questioned his evidence. HOWEVER, on viewing several more times; to me, the figure <i>does</i> appear to reach out for the wall on his left, as if to feel his way along the dark hallway. In mid stride, you can see the right arm raise and appear to cross over the front of the body, and just before he exits the view area you can see his shoulders rotate left, as if reaching out. It's hard to tell for sure but if my sense of this is accurate, it lends credence to the idea that this is an actual person walking in a dark hallway. John E. L. Tenney says I'm wrong about that. <b>(UPDATE: Yes, he <i>said </i>that, but he knew I was right).</b><br />
<br />
<br />
On <a href="http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1040639/pg" target="_blank">a blog</a> one of the stars, John E.L. Tenney, said this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Honestly, I don’t know what it is. <br />
<br />
I took the footage to our head of photography for the show and had him
check it out. I wanted fresh, skeptical eyes to see it. Our head of
photography
has worked on hundreds of paranormal reality shows and after seeing this
footage and running it through all kinds of image processing software
eventually told me, “This is the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen working
on a paranormal show” <br />
<br />
"The building was sealed off and sweeped by the crew before they left,
we do this at every location to make sure no one is in the building.
Since
Chad and I are alone when we investigate it is a safety measure we take
to make sure there isn’t anyone who might hurt us when we’re alone in
the
building. <br />
<br />
"I saw the figure I saw it in real time. <br />
<br />
"Although it’s often mind-numbing to stare at the check-in camera monitor
all night long it’s necessary and in this case was worth it. I honestly
didn’t even know if I saw what I saw. By that I mean the camera is a
live feed I have no way to go back and look at it until the morning. So I
saw
the figure and then I was like, “what did I just see?” It wasn’t until
the morning after Chad was done that I could go retrieve the camera and
check for what I thought I saw."</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
The fact that one of the show's cast members isn't selling it as totally real is interesting. <b>(UPDATE: And as it turns out, it was because he was selling it as possibly paranormal when he never actually believed that was the case).</b> It may mean that there is a lot of room for a more natural explanation. Or maybe he's just trying to maintain a certain distance from it, in case a more prosaic explanation comes to light. That's an excellent policy, now that I think about it.<br />
<br />
SUGGESTION TO PRODUCERS OF THE SHOW:<b> </b><i>Invest some money in a recording</i> FLIR <i>heat detection camera and add it to the check-in site. Two would be even better; one to carry with whomever is in the building at the time. If this figure had no heat signature, we could rule-out an actual human messing with you. Please consider this. </i><br />
<br />
<b>VERDICT:</b> <strike><i>Possibly</i> paranormal phenomenon captured, with some caveats and subject to further revelations and information.</strike> As a matter of intellectual honesty, we have to consider the possibility that there's a crazy naked homeless guy living in that building who only comes out at night (or a bored crew member who decided to pull an unethical stunt... or Chad, who is always pretty wired and seems like the kind of guy who might do this). If it was a homeless guy, it would be easy enough (a necessity, in fact) for him to find a never-visited crawl space/attic/duct system to hide in. On the other hand, it is strange that he wasn't caught on any of the static or perimeter cameras, so there's that. And that's the only reason I mention a crew member: <strike>John E. L. Tenney wouldn't pull anything like this, in my opinion</strike>, <b>(UPDATE: But he has no problem with misleading his audience. In John E. L. Tenney's skeptic interview, he tells us that he doesn't believe that ghosts exist, or "any of that" - so any statements he has made in the show suggesting paranormal phenomena were disingenuous)</b> but we know nothing of the crew people and they alone would have the information necessary to evade detection.<br />
<br />
<b>FINAL VERDICT: Debunked, thanks to John Tenney's candid admissions on a skeptic podcast show. If we just went by what was on television, I couldn't say that. On Ghost Stalkers, his show, Tenney referred to this image over and over as an entity and an apparition, and suggested various supernatural explanations. But when John Tenney recently spoke to skeptics, he informed them that he didn't believe that, that he doesn't believe in ghosts or anything else. He told the skeptics he thought it was a homeless guy. I don't know if that is true, but I know he never told the Ghost Stalkers audience anything like that. </b><br />
<br />
<b>Who was it? For what it's worth I DID tell John E. L. Tenney in an email way back when this all started that I thought it was a homeless guy - or maybe even Chad, which he assured me was wrong. Now I'm more inclined to think that I got it right from the beginning and I let Tenney mislead me into thinking he had something genuine. After his interview on the skeptic podcast (<i>A MUST LISTEN!</i>) it seems pretty clear that you can't really take Tenney at his word. </b><br />
<br />
<b>ONLY John E. L. Tenney's disingenuous commentary made it seem real. He never thought it was paranormal. Even when he commented on this post back in November (you can still see that comment below), he was still selling the high points of what he thought made this video paranormal... but now we know he didn't believe that. Listen to the skeptic interview of Tenney and get the inside scoop. (Link below)</b><strike><br /></strike>
<b>FINAL THOUGHT</b>, February 20, 2015. Well, here we are, with me doing a <i>mea culpa</i>. I'm all about honesty with my readers, so I have to confess that I was duped by this one. John E. L. Tenney did a good job of selling this video as paranormal evidence on the show, and in email communications to me. Even though he tempered that position in his own blog, he still left it out there as possible paranormal evidence. And I was gullible enough to buy his testimony, since I wasn't there and I misread his character. Well, that just goes to show you: Never ever trust anything on one of these shows, or any of the people on them. They will say and do <i>anything </i>for ratings. In the end, you'll just get burned. <i><b> </b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Buyer Beware!</b></i><strike><br /></strike><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://paranormalskepticacademy.com/bonus-interview-with-john-tenney" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><sup><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><b>HERE IS THE LINK to the Skeptic podcast where John E. L. Tenney confesses that HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GHOSTS and never found anything paranormal. According to Tenney, he acts like he believes in the paranormal so that he can get people to come to his lectures where he hopes to convert them.</b></span></sup></a></span><br />
<br />
HELPFUL TIME CODE GUIDE FOR THE PODCAST! Although the host of this podcast is nice as pie to Tenney (because he's talking to one of his fellow non-believers) the guy is a major dick in general and has a hugely smug sense of superiority (rather unjustified from what I've heard). So you may want to avoid the smugness oozing out of his mouth and skip to the highlights (not that John Tenney seems to have any better opinion of those who believe in the paranormal, but I can't fix that for you):<br />
<ul>
<li>19:10 The show is NOT about figuring out if a place is haunted</li>
<li>24:10 "It shocks people when I tell them I don't believe in ghosts."</li>
<li>30:40 "It's really funny that someone who doesn't believe in any of this snuck onto a show." (Referring to himself).</li>
<li>42:00 John E. L. Tenney refers to himself again as a non-believer.</li>
<li>45:50 Reiterates once again, "I don't believe in ghosts."</li>
<li>46:20 Refers to what he is doing as somewhat manipulative. In this whole segment, (from this point on) John E. L. Tenney details how he uses the idea of being on a ghost hunting show to get people to come to his lectures so he can "rip down the fabric of what they think they believe." (John's words, again).</li>
</ul>
<br />
This John Tenney revelations reminds me of something from professional wrestling known as the heel turn. You have a guy who says he's on your side, then when your back is turned - BOOM - you get hit in the head with a chair. The "chair" in this case is that John is a nonbeliever who isn't looking for evidence of hauntings at all. In fact, you were foolish if you believed that, according to Tenney.<br />
<br />
But who is supposed to be impressed by John's heel turn? Are his new fans now the fundamentalist materialist skeptics? I doubt it. They don't believe John is one of them, despite his insistence that he is a total skeptic and his believer fans are idiots, they aren't buying it. And the skeptics are skeptical of John for some very good reasons. The first being that he constantly sells his "findings" as evidence of paranormal activity on the show. Tenney tells them it's just an act, but they aren't so sure.<br />
<br />
Then, if you just plug John Tenney into a Google search, you'll come up with <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/10/09/ghost-stalkers-star-john-el-tenney-devil-is-real/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">John declaring the Devil is real!</a> And other such religious pronouncements.All from a guy who says he is a skeptic and doesn't believe in anything. Who is the real John Tenney? We'll probably never know. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">------------------------</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>DISCLAIMER: </b>Nothing in this post or blog is meant to suggest that the supernatural or paranormal does not exist. The fact is, I don't know. All I can do is look at the evidence to see if it stands up to the test of very simple scrutiny. If it passes, yay. If it fails, oh well... there's always next time. Investigators are human. I'm human. We all make mistakes. My pointing out the mistakes that others make should not be taken to imply that they are wrong <i>in general</i>, or that the things they investigate are only the product of imagination. And the number one lesson of this post: TRUST NOTHING ON A PARANORMAL TV SHOW! Assume they are lying (because they probably are).</span></span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8qZGgfIRqd3gFRoLhtsBRnM66nmxkRJ0rvD7LPLTum7IU75OSgZs4XBFA5wJhc5sad3lZf5IU8cKkIy1a86bs0HbWsteJ-G5_z7UNF2kKhNtZMBl8IZoBHF2ORLVUz43rsxTU4i4DmPQ/s1600/size.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8qZGgfIRqd3gFRoLhtsBRnM66nmxkRJ0rvD7LPLTum7IU75OSgZs4XBFA5wJhc5sad3lZf5IU8cKkIy1a86bs0HbWsteJ-G5_z7UNF2kKhNtZMBl8IZoBHF2ORLVUz43rsxTU4i4DmPQ/s1600/size.jpg" height="400" width="358" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Investigator John Tenny enters the room (same camera). John is 6'2"<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
...... photo courtesy John E. L. Tenney</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Chriss Paganihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11644410311763728065noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-814089500477058363.post-34731738626049735292014-10-26T09:03:00.003-07:002014-10-30T14:26:21.683-07:00Old Wheeler Hotel, Ghost Caught on Video?When I first saw this ghost video, I was blown away. It just blinks when you see it at normal speed, but in the slowed down version (second half of the posted video) it made me feel like a figure really crossed in front of the television screen! Wow, proof of the supernatural at last. Why aren't these guys on television?<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cdVi2ntgvHY" width="459"></iframe></center>
<br />
Oh yes, this video is a few years old - I only found it because I read a review of the Old Wheeler Hotel, where this event takes place. You can see the paranormal investigator sleeping in the bed. There's a blip on the screen. Can't tell what it was. But then the video has a second half where it's shown in slow motion, and the blip now looks more like a figure. Sort of. I was stunned. Be sure to watch the video before you continue reading! These are investigators from <a href="http://www.psioforegon.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">PSI of Oregon</a>, located in Coos Bay. They don't have much on youtube but this one certainly got my attention! Feel free to check out their web site.<br />
<br />
But seriously - watch the video first! Twice! <br />
<br />
<center>
***</center>
<br />
Did you watch the video? No, really, you need to do that first....<br />
<br />
I was able to break the video down into frames, and brighten it a bit, just to see what is going on here. When you do that, it looks much less impressive. First, though, I want to mention that I applaud their work. People who want to provide evidence that paranormal activities are real should be thorough and open in their investigations. I'm always excited to find anything new and different, and this one got me excited.<br />
<br />
<br />
Looking at the frames from the slow motion portion of the video, brightness enhanced but no other changes:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidos-WuGBDQiLrYDzUreFHXzlrP6M5fkMdkYw5AI7V_Rd5q2DOLco-6-tulxVf5wKSHLWBE2izCMCqelY8OhJqjSbLyC2qdalno-YLb87Gpz_iSEWPSUYh9hoddp7FuOZ-r6PMKFUr73E/s1600/vlcsnap-2014-10-26-08h14m17s12.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidos-WuGBDQiLrYDzUreFHXzlrP6M5fkMdkYw5AI7V_Rd5q2DOLco-6-tulxVf5wKSHLWBE2izCMCqelY8OhJqjSbLyC2qdalno-YLb87Gpz_iSEWPSUYh9hoddp7FuOZ-r6PMKFUr73E/s1600/vlcsnap-2014-10-26-08h14m17s12.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Time stamp: 8 hrs 14m 17sec</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
You'll want to focus on the television set. This is an old old picture tube type television. The kind you can't buy anymore. You might want to look-up the process of how they work. Basically, an electron gun at the back of the tube shoots a beam of charged particles at the front of the tube, the inside of which is coated with phosphor, so the particles cause the phosphor to glow momentarily. It's a single stream of particles, the gun itself is moved back and forth very rapidly by electromagnets. They're a big bunch of wires surrounding the neck of the tube, should you ever get to look at one. Obviously, as with any mechanical process (and this IS mechanical) stuff can go wrong. Here you can see that the very bottom right of the picture is pulling in just a tiny amount. In other words, the electron scan is missing a little at the corner. The picture tube is probably pretty worn out, so this is no surprise.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYQFa3rrz7fZmBHsNBzOvnJomFg69EWf10IiqfgoFSONxE1e4NcWKbUq1ISjmxV81_jH-1x5BudJyTRVxvvv_cNA5FTGjnoF7PtMUAkgx-dvZ712oGlLM11_upKaCBpklIa44zHElZzBs/s1600/vlcsnap-2014-10-26-08h13m31s19.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYQFa3rrz7fZmBHsNBzOvnJomFg69EWf10IiqfgoFSONxE1e4NcWKbUq1ISjmxV81_jH-1x5BudJyTRVxvvv_cNA5FTGjnoF7PtMUAkgx-dvZ712oGlLM11_upKaCBpklIa44zHElZzBs/s1600/vlcsnap-2014-10-26-08h13m31s19.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">8hrs 13min 31 seconds</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Here we see that the tired picture tube scanning has lost a few dozen pixels or so wide stretch from the bottom right to the right middle - and now the scan failure is creeping across the top of the picture. Again, this is old mechanical picture tube equipment - and it's been left running for hours. This thing happens with old tvs left on for long periods. The static (rather than an actual picture) provides no information so the electron gun has to hit every pixel. It's more than it can handle..<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ7K75zZ_956mbzgEW4TgfmytKuNz2QOuAxFPL1C1WzF7nwJQSpIF_Jp59sD1yfg_Tnxrll1TNmjjrZ9MM2iLcgmKMyyZOYf5_qgGPv1KaZHTf9pefGjdNfabrumqrAO_tjd9mMywZDfA/s1600/vlcsnap-2014-10-26-08h14m02s105.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ7K75zZ_956mbzgEW4TgfmytKuNz2QOuAxFPL1C1WzF7nwJQSpIF_Jp59sD1yfg_Tnxrll1TNmjjrZ9MM2iLcgmKMyyZOYf5_qgGPv1KaZHTf9pefGjdNfabrumqrAO_tjd9mMywZDfA/s1600/vlcsnap-2014-10-26-08h14m02s105.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">8hrs 14min 02 seconds</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Now the scan has filled in at the top, but expanded the scan failure along the bottom - AND it's overscanning a little on the left side, about two thirds of the way down, creating a little bright spot.<br />
<br />
We've captured our ghost! Very interesting. When you watch the video, it really looks like a shadowy figure walks in front of the tv. This is an optical illusion. The TV is the source of light, it's right in front of the camera AND it's the brightest object in the room by several orders of magnitude.When you look at the frames, you see the only thing happening here is electron gun scan failure in the old picture tube. The illusion of motion comes from how the scan failure creeps around the corners of the screen - and as it does so, it darkens the room a little (since it is the primary source of light) and the smearing of the whiteness of the screen (because it's the light source) means the darkening of the picture also appears to spread vertically from the image. That's the camera's sensor having trouble with the sudden light change. And with this frame analysis, you can now see that the only thing darkening the room is the slight loss of light from the television. There is <i>no</i> intervening figure.<br />
<br />
Disappointing. I really thought they had something at first. Oh well, try try again! No apparitions. No ghosts, just the appearance of failing 20th century technology, as far as I can see. If you have an alternative explanation, I will be interested to hear it. Oh well... Now, if you want to say the scan failure was caused by paranormal phenomena, that's a different question. I'm answering the main question: No, there isn't any figure present. The root cause of the apparent picture tube failure is something that is a bit beyond me. Perhaps some technical experts would like to weigh-in..<br />
<br />
So, I'm sorry (very), PSI of Oregon investigators. Sorry Old Wheeler Hotel. I wanted very much to believe you. But alas ....at least as far as the presence of a full body apparition of some sort - u debunked.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
------------------------</div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>DISCLAIMER: </b>Nothing in this post or blog is meant to suggest that the supernatural or paranormal does not exist. The fact is, I don't know. All I can do is look at the evidence to see if it stands up to the test of very simple scrutiny. If it passes, yay. If it fails, oh well... there's always next time. Investigators are human. I'm human. We all make mistakes. My pointing out the mistakes that others make should not be taken to imply that they are wrong <i>in general</i>, or that the things they investigate are only the product of imagination. I named this blog "U Debunked It" to be cute, but I actually hate the debunking mindset. One should go into every investigation with an open mind. It's the only way to find out what is really there. That is what I do. </span></span>Chriss Paganihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11644410311763728065noreply@blogger.com0