View single post by Keith Clark
 Posted: Dec 14th, 2007 06:59 PM
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Keith Clark



Joined: Dec 31st, 2006
Location: Clearwater, Florida USA
Posts: 1637
Status: 
Offline
Hello,

I would like to make a comment on the link above referencing the spectrum analysis on the "gobeyondnow" website.

Yes, I agree that it is clearly obvious that the tones found in the recorded conversations of Spiricom are not the frequencies given in Meek's book. I have known this for awhile. In fact, during the clip I refer to as "Mary had a little lamb", the frequencies actually are:

194, 288, 384, 483, 578, 675, 770, 862, 962, 1056, 1156, 1252, 1350, 1439, 1538, 1630.

HOWEVER, it is obvious that the reason for use of the tones is completely misunderstood by the public. Tones WERE NOT necessary for spirit to come through radio, they only allowed the speech that did come through to be intelligible. For the longest time I was also under the same impression. There is nothing ultimately special about the proposed frequencies laid out in Dr. Meek's work as given to him by Doc Nick, meaning that Spiricom communication did not rely solely upon a specific set of frequencies.

The set of frequencies was a guideline for how human speech could be imitated using tones.  It was a very clever analysis and adaptation of musical notes and scales applied to synthesis of speech. It must be first understood that the tones were used to further modify something which had already been partially accomplished - to refine an existing signal to allow for further intelligibility.

 

 

*********************
Showing that tones in recorded Spiricom material are not the same as laid out in George Meek's work doesn't really accomplish anything, let alone lend any evidence toward discrediting Spiricom. So what?
We also know that O'Neil had to adjust and tune the frequencies all the time. Well, if he had to adjust them all the time it is clearly obvious that they could not be the same frequencies laid out in Meek's book, isn't it? Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

I don't have any knowledge regarding Hale's discussion of sibilance and pops, so I won't comment on that.

Personally, I find no point in trying to either credit or disprove Spiricom. People seem to limit themselves to only what others think is possible. It will happen again.

 

Keith