Forums > Social Discussion > Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP)

Login/Join to Participate
Page:
Sakura_MoonHop's Kitten Jester.
1,803 posts
Location: Wonderland igloo, Vic, Australia


Posted:
Just went to see "White Noise"
Most of it creeped me out, but the rest of it got me thinking about EVP.
EVP is the recording of the sounds and images of people who have died and are still trying to communicate something.
Personally i believe in something more than death, beyond that, not hellbent on it, but i do believe.
I was searching the net and found some recordings, some of them sounded convincing, oters semed like they were made up.
Has anyone ever tried EVP?
It has been proven that 1 in 12 EVP recordings has been threatening...out of the thousands and thousands recorded.
On the advertisement for the movie, they used a real image that someone had found last year while studying EVP.
It was of a woman who died in 1984.
Thomas Edison said soemthing about it before tv was invented..will find it and post again

Opinions? Comments? Critiscism? Anyone think i'm insane?

.:Pink Exocutioner:.

I am Jack's Raging Bile Duct...

Loving you from the deepest part of my loins.



Sakura_MoonHop's Kitten Jester.
1,803 posts
Location: Wonderland igloo, Vic, Australia


Posted:
Some oen i kenw when i was little had been doing this kinda thing for years...i suppose, i mean that - you need experience, and guidance..before anything can be judged..
for eg: i would trust a psychic whos being doing this for 10 years. who knows what they're talking about, rather than someone who has just started up and copuldnt convince a llama they knew what they're on about.
But i suppose if you ahvea gift for it...

I dont know, some of thses things confuse me..
*looks for your test*

.:Pink Exocutioner:.

I am Jack's Raging Bile Duct...

Loving you from the deepest part of my loins.



spiralxveteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK


Posted:
Quiet, you are my new hero. I don't think you left out any points I'd've liked to make here, and spent more time doing it than I would've done biggrin

"Moo," said the happy cow.


darkpoetBRONZE Member
Irish
525 posts
Location: Dallas.........ish, USA


Posted:
sym...im VERY intersted in the test...im just an ocean away....ill add more to the thread later...i be thinking on how to word it

Jesus saves sinners and redeems them for cash and
prizes

Co-Founder of Keepers of Light

Educate yourself about the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


herenewbie
1 post

Posted:
A good site I on evp is www.aaevp.com thay been doing it for a long time.

If wilderness is outlawed, only outlaws can save wilderness. E.B


jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
Here's a better site. wink
https://skepdic.com/evp.html

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


quietanalytic
503 posts
Location: bristol


Posted:
jeff, that's absolutely priceless . . .

ture na sig


SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
skepdic.com is a good site, but I think wikipedia is better for providing a neutral view point.

I'm still willing and keen to do the test. Does anyone have any EVP mp3s? not ones of the internet, but self-recorded ones.

I'll upload them and add a wiki so we can all post comments about what we hear.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


ValuraSILVER Member
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia


Posted:
thanks Sym for being open minded hug hug hug hug hug


*glances in jeff and quiets direction*

TAJ "boat mummy." VALURA "yes sweetie you went on a boat, was daddy there with you?" TAJ "no, but monkey on boat" VALURA "well then sweetie, Daddy WAS there with you"


SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
Thanks hug but don't get me wrong, I think skepdic.com is an amazing site that takes a lot of un-needed rubbish out of the world.

Wikipedia is more rounded though.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


ValuraSILVER Member
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia


Posted:
oh yeah dont get me wrong...I know your not a believer per say, I just appreciate you giving other peoples an opinion an opportunity also.

TAJ "boat mummy." VALURA "yes sweetie you went on a boat, was daddy there with you?" TAJ "no, but monkey on boat" VALURA "well then sweetie, Daddy WAS there with you"


quietanalytic
503 posts
Location: bristol


Posted:
ey, hang on a second: I'm completely open-minded. If anyone comes up to me and shows me evidence that some strange phenomenon happens, or gives me an account of how it might work, then I'm prepared to investigate and / or believe as appropriate.

There's a difference between being 'close-minded' and sceptical. Or, likewise, between being open-minded and unrestrictedly credulous. The difference is this: being open-minded is a matter of being prepared to entertain crazy hypotheses or beliefs, whilst being unrestrictedly credulous is a matter of buying into those crazy hypothesis wholesale, without giving much thought to the justification.

So I'm open-minded; that is, I'll entertain all sorts of crazy ideas. But I'm also sceptical; that is, I'm not willing just to adopt beliefs regardless of the evidence. Put another way, I'm not saying that these things (such as EVP) are a logical impossiblity, but I *do* require some evidence or argument.

Believing stuff that you don't have reason to believe isn't a virtue, it's a vice, just as being closed-minded is.

ture na sig


jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
Oh, I'm completely open minded. Everything is compared openly and the evidence weighed up and judged acordingly. I've heard the tapes. Most are just random white noise that people find meaning in. Some are interfearence from baby monitors (I find those quite funny actually). Like I've said before, being open minded is not the same as disregarding critical thought. Being open minded is about realising that you could be wrong. I realise that I could be wrong, but frankly I almost certainly aren't. And personally if I were a ghost I would probably have better things to do than hiss into a spiritulist tape recorder.

Apologies is I've misspelt anything, I'm quite, quite drunk.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


quietanalytic
503 posts
Location: bristol


Posted:
two almost identical, but independent, posts, within two minutes of each other.

that's just uncanny. coincidence - or TELEPATHY?

ture na sig


SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
ubblol

I'll 3rd those points.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
How can you be open minded when you always rely on "proof" and "evidence"?

What about things that aren't possible (yet) to prove or explain?

(What if I'd said "The Earth goes round the Sun" in the 12th Century? Would you believe me if I couldn't prove it?)

If you're a believer, then surely what you believe can't be proven? Because if it was provable, then it would be impossible to "believe"? It would simply be fact.

I too think that ghosts (and I don't think they exist) have probably got better things to do than "hiss into a spiritualist tape recorder"

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


ValuraSILVER Member
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia


Posted:
Written by: quiet


two almost identical, but independent, posts, within two minutes of each other.

that's just uncanny. coincidence - or TELEPATHY?




"occainisonally argumentitive?"


As I said earlier in the thread Im quite open to testing the theory as I dont know too much about it at all.
Yes I am a spiritualist, and I do "readings" and also contact spirit that has passed over but that doesnt mean any of my beliefs are "vices" I find that plain condescending. I give you space respectfully to state your opinions without poking fun or being rude. Its a shame that you dont seem to be able to do the same. rolleyes

TAJ "boat mummy." VALURA "yes sweetie you went on a boat, was daddy there with you?" TAJ "no, but monkey on boat" VALURA "well then sweetie, Daddy WAS there with you"


PrometheusDiamond In The Rough
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia


Posted:
Science lives by continually disproving itself. I'm not sure that science can document something like this because it's unrecordable. How can you measure or document something which for all intents and purposes isn't there? Man-made instruments cannot document these phenmenomena, and we know the human body is an imperfect instrument. (I often laugh when I see these 'ghost hunters' armed with a bag full of Radio Shack, waving gadgets in the air, hoping for a reading. They often have little understanding of hard science or true spiritualism. A modern-day ghost hunter needs both.)



There are just too many variables related to EVP that make it wholly unreliable. Think about this: you're standing still, holding your micro-cassette recorder. Even when it's brand new, the heads will be covered in minute specks of dust and debris. Is the tape new? Are the batteries alkaline or lithium? All these factors can create distortions of your static recording.

Now let's say that your equipment is in pristine order. No matter where you go, you're swimming in a sea of electronic disturbance: AM, FM, UHF, VHF, shortwave, television, cellular phones, cordless phones, faxes, pagers, satellite communications, telemetry, navigation, radar, police and emergency bands, citizens bands, the military, air traffic control, not to mention solar flares, electromagnetic disturbances, and all the naturally occuring radio waves from space. How do you know what you're hearing is a ghost? confused
EDITED_BY: Prometheus (1116648666)

Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.

Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.


quietanalytic
503 posts
Location: bristol


Posted:
Valura, sorry if I caused offence - that was supposed to be good-natured irony rather than rudeness. Nor do I think (and nor did I say) that any of your beliefs were 'vices': my point was that being prepared to believe something without any good reason whatsoever counts as a vice. You may well have good reasons for your beliefs: I'm not denying that possibility.

I do want to deal with Sethis' point, however:

'How can you be open minded when you always rely on "proof" and "evidence"? . . . If you're a believer, then surely what you believe can't be proven? Because if it was provable, then it would be impossible to "believe"? It would simply be fact.'

Like I said earlier, being open-minded is being prepared to ENTERTAIN IDEAS, not BELIEVE WITHOUT GOOD REASON. Consider: if we never relied on proof and evidence, we wouldn't just end up believing in one unprovable thing, we'd end up believing in all of them. There has to be some way of restricting the things which you're willing to believe, and 'proof' and 'evidence' are pretty good ways of doing this.

Secondly, you're equivocating over the sense of 'believe'. You can still believe stuff that's provable: for instance, I believe that objects fall downwards, not up. But this can still be proven. And re: your 12th century example, if you just baldly asserted that 'the Earth goes round the Sun', no - I probably wouldn't believe you. Why not? Because there wouldn't be any good reason to. Ah, you say - so you admit that just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it's not right; maybe you should be more open-minded. Ah, I answer, I've accepted all along that I may well be wrong about my beliefs: my point is simply that you shouldn't go adopting new beliefs without reason. So if you explained to me WHY it was that you thought the Earth went round the Sun, I might believe.

So if you can't yet prove it, and there isn't yet any evidence for it, that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen: but it *does* mean that you don't (most likely) have any reason to think that it does happen. There are exceptions, such as when a scientific hypothesis predicts results that are as yet unobserved.

ture na sig


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Thank you for the clarification of your position Quiet, I'm not saying that we should believe in every unexplained phenomena that happens along, but I see your point.

But surely in my example then the proper attitude should be "OK, maybe that is the case" rather than "You have no evidence, therefore I'm going to universally condemn your theory"?

Because what If I presented you with a working model of the solar system as we now know it to be, In the 12th Century? I have given you a sensible hypothesis, and Christian teaching gives you another (equally sensible at the time) hypothesis. Neither are provable directly, so who do you believe, and why?

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


quietanalytic
503 posts
Location: bristol


Posted:
which do i believe? answer: whichever i have most reason to believe. if i dont have reason to believe either, the best option is to suspend belief - to say 'well, either might be the case, but i dunno'.

yes, you're right to say that in yr example the proper attitude shouldn't be 'i'm going to universally condemn your theory'. but it's hard to see what merits a theory could have in the absence of any evidence; i wouldn't say 'you have no evidence, so i'm going to condemn it', but i might well say 'you have no evidence, and you've given me no reason to believe it.'

there's a difference between believing an idea, and entertaining that idea. i'm in favour of entertaining all sorts of ideas. i don't think you should commit to believing something unless there is good reason to do so.

ture na sig


SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
I think there is a massive difference between ‘believing’ and ‘truth’. I don’t believe that an apple falls to the ground, I know it does. I believe Quiet lives in Bristol, but I don’t know he does. Belief – to me – is something I feel to be true but I don’t know it to be. I don’t believe in EVP or most ‘super-natural’ phenomena but seeing as I have no evidence to disprove it I cannot say if it’s true or false. I do know that all the hypothesises so far haven’t passed any fair tests, but that doesn’t really mean anything in the long run.

Think of the flat earth argument; someone could hypothesise that the earth is round. No one can prove or disprove it but all the evidence points to a flat earth because we don’t fall off and it doesn’t look round. On the other hand any 12th C scientist shouldn’t throw out the idea that the world is round because they can’t prove either hypotheses. I am aware that Eratosthenes and Aristotle made some very good obviations over 10,000 years before the 12th C.

I think this might help as well:


Non-Https Image Link


I think everyone should read the first 3 chapters (at least) of Terry Pratchett’s new book ‘The science of the Discworld III: Darwin's Watch’. It really explains the scientific process well; talking about it as a crossword. Scientists are trying to solve this puzzle but some clues are harder than others. Sometimes an easy clue helps solve a very hard one but sometimes it’ll disprove an existing answer. Scientists should look at both answers and test them both extensively until they can settle on one. But, of cause the next clue might start the process off again. Really, go and read it, it’s very good.

A lot of people accuse scientists of being ‘closed minded’ when they are – in theory – very ‘open minded’ because if someone can prove something they accept it and move on. Of cause sometimes they don’t’ agree with findings but in most cases it’s not a problem.

If you look on the other hand at the Catholic Church (I know we’re not talking about religion here, but it’s a good example of scientific thinking vs non-scientific thinking) who took nearly 80 years after the theory of evolution had been widely accepted to accept it themselves. This is not ‘open-minded’ at all, but before I get accused of a ‘straw man’ argument we can see it every day. There are still creationists today, who won’t accept evolution, there is still a flat earth society, homeopathy is believed, etc etc etc. Non-scientific people tend to believe things outright without any proper testing. Sometimes they test things but most of these tests aren’t repeatable (one of the key points in testing a hypothesis) and don’t comply to the ‘double-blind’ mechanisms that should be in place. That – to me – is far more ‘closed-minded’ because if what they believe in is disproved they won’t accept the outcome and move on or look at any other hypotheses.

Obviously this is generalising greatly. There are scientists who won’t accept some proven things and there are non-scientists who will change their mind is something is disproved, but it could be argued that that makes them a scientist!

I hope this hasn’t been too boring for people! I’ve gone on more than I was going to.

As for more on the test, I will try to get something set up that will allow people to upload recordings. Once uploaded there will be a 2 week delay before posting is allowed. This will let everyone listed to the recording a few times and write down what they hear. This should include the following:

Transcript of the recording as detailed as possible.
Number of voices
Sex of voice(s)
Age/sex/race of listener
Languages spoken (and 1-5 grading of ability – 5 being fluent 1 being a few words / phrasebook style)
Country of listener
Profession of listener

That’s all I can think of for now – can anyone else think of something that would be good to include? We can’t have anything too personal or identifying because of the inherent dangers of a public website.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


quietanalytic
503 posts
Location: bristol


Posted:
one important detail: people shouldn't read what other people have written before they do the transcript (this applies to this EVP business, not to the forum in general). the reason for this is that it's all too easy to project what you think is going on onto a background; for instance, if you watch the snow field that a television tuned to statis displays, you'll be able to see movement and shapes. if someone says 'look, there's a dinosaur', you'll be able to see one. the same goes for seeing patterns in any random array. so, to control for this, people's reports should be entirely independent.

ture na sig


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Good ponts Sym, and a very neat diagram that I think I'll lift (if you don't mind).

Quiet, what reasons would you have to believe a theory other than evidence? Surely cultural values must have an effect? If we continue the 12th Century example, then it would be far more likely for you to believe the orthodox Christian viewpoint because:

A. Christianity (if you lived in Europe) would have such a dominating part of your own life, then you wouldn't really be prepared to entertain ideas that contradicted it.

B. The Enlightenment, and the emergence of Scientific method hasn't really emerged into popular culture yet. Therefore the process in the diagram above isn't really established.

If I presented the model above to anyone in the 12th Century then I'd probably get something along the lines of "But God made the Sun to go round the Earth, everyone knows that" accompanied by some funny looks.

Merits other than Evidence? Well of course you have to advance a theory BEFORE you gather evidence to prove it, ergo all science depends on theories that have no evidence to their names. (I know that this is kinda obvious, but I thought I'd point it out)

However surely there is purpose to theories for which it is not possible to gather evidence? An example would be the question "Do aliens exist?" It is impossible to gather evidence directly because of the sheer size of the universe. However, the advancement of this theory leads to mathematical computations of the POSSIBILITY of extraterrestrial life existing. This extrapolation leads to people funding probes and radio broadcasts (SETI etc.)

So does the theory "Aliens do exist" have no value? What if there ARE aliens, and they come to our planet because of our attampts to reach them? On the other hand, what if Aliens DON'T exist? Is it a waste of effort to try and contact them, or is it justifiable to conduct research that *may* result in gains?

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
Sorry to be picky here but you're "Do aliens exist?" example would be a hypotheses. there is no way of testing it so as per the diagram above it wouldn't be a theory. This is very important when you look at the "just a theory" quotations from some American schools ( https://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/index.html
)



The diagram above was taken from wikibooks. There is no copyright on it so anyone is free to use it in anyway.



See https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Image:Ap_biology_scienceofbiology01.jpg
for the original.



Edit: of cause the question wouldn't be a hypotheses, but the statment "aliens do exist" would be. rolleyes
EDITED_BY: Sym_ (1116714166)

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Sorry, that's a little unclear. I meant that testing whether "aliens do exist" is quite difficult.

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
Yes, therefore it can't really be a theory, only a hypotheses, meaning it's an unfounded idea.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
What?? So the only difference between a Theory and a Hypothesis is how difficult they are to prove?? That makes NO sense. Please clarify.

And all Hypotheses have foundations: the observation of phenomena that causes it! It says that in your own post!

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
No it doesn't!

hypothesis |h???p???s?s| noun ( pl. -ses |-si?z|)
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation : professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis.
• Philosophy a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. ORIGIN late 16th cent.: via late Latin from Greek hupothesis ‘foundation,’ from hupo ‘under’ + thesis ‘placing.’

------------

theory |????ri| noun ( pl. -ries)
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution.
• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based : a theory of education | music theory.
• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action : my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged.
• Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

Read that and follow the diagram. For you to have a theory that "aliens do exist" you would need quite a lot of evidence saying they do. A Hypothesis could be as little as a hunch or the possibility bases on other things we know, such as the size and matter contained in the universe vs chance of life.

There is a difference.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


quietanalytic
503 posts
Location: bristol


Posted:
um, hang on a second

'However surely there is purpose to theories for which it is not possible to gather evidence? An example would be the question "Do aliens exist?" It is impossible to gather evidence directly because of the sheer size of the universe.'

You're equivocating over the sense of the word 'possible'. It's true that it may be impractical, or difficult, to gather evidence for the existence of aliens; but if their existence impacts on the universe in any way, it's possible to find evidence for their existence.

Sethis, I grant you that the cultural environment would make a difference to what I'd believe (indeed, it currently does). But that doesn't mean that it gives me any reason to believe those things.

'Quiet, what reasons would you have to believe a theory other than evidence?'

That's easy: explanatory power, elegance, simplicity, the avoidance of multiplying entities beyond necessity (otherwise known as Occam's Razor), and theoretical unification, to name but a few. Not to mention coherence and consistency.

ture na sig


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Why do simplicity and elegance affect the chances of you believing them? What about Algebra? That's not simple, but I believe it works. I agree with all your other criteria though.

Yes it's possible, but not at the moment, and not for the forseeable future either. My point was really that there can be a purpose for theories for which we currently are unable to obtain evidence for.

Sym,

It says in your Diagram that Hypotheses are two steps below Observation, whereas Theory is the final result. I am quite capable of seeing the difference, and I don't need dictionary definitions to point it out.

My original statement was that "Aliens do exist" (as a Hypothesis) NOT as a Theory. That's why I agreed with your reply to my post when I first brought Aliens up.

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


Page:

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [electronic voice phenomenon evp] we found the following existing topics.

  1. Forums > Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP) [92 replies]

      Show more..

HOP Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...