 | ||||
| ||||
| | ||||
| ||||
| ITC Bridge and iDigitalMedium.com are now VARANORMAL.COM Please visit: https://www.varanormal.com This site does not allow new registrations, and is now an online archive of a decade of Paranormal and ITC (Instrumental Transcommunication) experimentation from 2007 - 2016 We thank you for a wonderful decade! ~ Keith Clark & Ron Ruiz |
| Moderated by: Vicki Talbott, lance, Keith Clark, Deborah, ArizonaEvp |
|
||||||||||||||
| Well, fudge. | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Jun 10th, 2010 10:14 AM |
|
1st Post |
|
Old GUy Member
|
I guess this is Hello and Good-bye. I stumbled in here as the result of my continuing quest for knowledge. I build all my own equipment and am currently focused on the field of subsonics. I am a cynic toward anything labeled Ghost-this or Paranormal-that. The consumer should be asking, "How is thing validated?" I am a skeptic toward all the "evidence" and "proof" gathered and presented using such "tools and equipment." I am a believer based on my own personal experiences and faith. The technologies demonstrated here significantly piqued my interests. Then I read the rules: "This website is predicated on the idea that life after death has already been proven through much objective evidence presented over the past 100 years." AFAIK, such "evidence" has never been submitted, nor has it ever been subjected to the scientific review process. Therefore this statement must be false. If the statement were true, what's the point of what you're doing? A more significant question, how do you validate the results? Do you have a ghost-standard?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 10th, 2010 05:51 PM |
|
2nd Post |
|
Keith Clark Administrator 
|
Hi "Old Guy" Evidence of life after death has been around for many years, more notably beginning in the 1800's during the spiritualist movement. A notable list of who's who including many men of mention, education, and repute have investigated life after death and added their voices to the group of people who can say that they have experienced first hand some form of communication with spirit and have undoubtedly proven beyond their satisfaction that same evidence and shared it with the public. Since men of science are the most likely to be involved in such research, those are the people I speak of. When I speak of life after death being proven, I do not speak of Instrumental Transcommunication. Rather, it is presently one of the weakest forms of communication with spirit in regards to providing irrefutable evidence. There are many methods of communicating with spirit, of which ITC is only one. Yet there have been thousands of books, articles, and first hand accounts of evidence from spirit being validated over the years, most particularly the last hundred years. If a person is seeking evidence that life exists after death, they will find it....and be sure of it. At present there is no such thing as proving to the mass populace that there is life after death in one fell swoop. Now it has come down to personal experience. And that is why we experiment....some to assist in helping provide that evidence, some to try to contact their loved ones, some to develop in private and see where it will take them. Keith
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 11th, 2010 08:10 AM |
|
3rd Post |
|
Old GUy Member
|
Keith Clark wrote: Howdy, Keith. Since men of science are the most likely to be involved in such research, those are the people I speak of. If a person is seeking evidence that life exists after death, they will find it....and be sure of it. Therein lies the rub. (I get a sense that you already know this.) In order for "evidence" to gain acceptance as "proof" by the scientific community, it must be subjected to the review process before it will be recognized as law, hypothesis, theory, postulate, or principle. Any research claiming such "evidence" or "proof" must be reproducible and incontrovertible. This has yet to be achieved in any field related to the paranormal. Two modern examples that failed the scientific litmus test are cold fusion and global warming. The roots of this process go back at least as far as Aristotle in the 3rd century, B.C. The second statement is problematic for me because it is certainly so true. People continue to insist that they see faces on orbs because they continue to look for them. Yet the majorty concensus is that orbs are merely dust particles. Still I'm left with the question: How do you know?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 13th, 2010 10:21 AM |
|
4th Post |
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
Very simple. If you were presented with information from spirit that no living person would know, then most people would be convinced of life after death. For example, if someone from spirit told you that you ate half a banana before you went to work that morning, and you were the only one home, and you didn't tell anyone - would that be enough evidence for you? That is the personal experience I speak of, one that is specific to the individual. It will always happen that there will be many individual experiences before evidence is subjected and accepted by the general populace.... it has always been this way. Keith
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 14th, 2010 12:55 PM |
|
5th Post |
|
Old GUy Member
|
Keith Clark wrote: would that be enough evidence for you? Only if garnered within the established laws of scientific method, practice, and principle: Any research claiming such "evidence" or "proof" must be reproducible and incontrovertible. Those aren't my rules. They are from the rules of science. IMHO - The lack of credibility that permeates the field of paranormal research is due almost exclusively to the failure to apply the scientific process. OTOH - There's a large number of self-proclaimed ghost hunters that refuse to put any stock in science at all. 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 14th, 2010 01:08 PM |
|
6th Post |
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
Hi, Your opinion is understood and heard. Keith
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 20th, 2010 07:06 AM |
|
7th Post |
|
Old GUy Member
|
Keith Clark wrote: Hi, Not if you think two thousand years of scientific process is only my opinion. Have a nice after-life. 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 22nd, 2010 12:48 AM |
|
8th Post |
|
Les Harris Member
|
I am an engineer who worked in R&D for a long time. Conversations with all sorts of people show me that the entire concept of science is only dimly recognized. Scientific principles do not burst upon the world fully formed and to the accepatnce of cheering multitudes. The path to reaching concensus that a hypothesis might be tenable is always littered with many hypotheses that are eventually found to be untenable. Along the path of progressive refinement, one not infrequently has to employ a balance of probabilities. If one had to wait for absolute proof of every mortal aspect, much engineering developent would stop in its tracks, never to proceed. This field is now widely researched and much objective material is available for public scrutiny. The significant public record began with the Pye studios research around 1972, of which the top Pye engineers declared that there was no known explanation for what they experienced. Since that time, the public record has grown almost exponentially. We are now in a era in which a number of leading thinkers in quantum mechanics are saying that the only way to understand recent observations of particle behaviour is that there must be parallel realities. They are saying that the four dimensions that we can see around us are only part of many that we can't see - yet. These aren't pot-heads, these people are world respected physicists. I could go on for pages but the message is that serious thinkers are taking a long hard look at concepts that would have been considered crackpot just a decade ago. I suggest that you don't dismiss this field of research until you have read all of the available literature. Put aside about three months full time because that's what you will need. Les Harris
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 22nd, 2010 01:07 PM |
|
9th Post |
|
Old GUy Member
|
Les, I am a scientist, having worked in many fields of discipline for the past 40+ years. I agree with everything you've said, aside from this: "I suggest that you don't dismiss this field of research until you have read all of the available literature." I have not dismissed this or any reasonably scientific field of research. I have taken exception with the statement, "This website is predicated on the idea that life after death has already been proven through much objective evidence presented over the past 100 years." So if I may, I'll ask you a direct question: How do you validate an ITC? I recently conducted two separate surveys, asking our peers what they believe the public perception is of paranormal research. Sadly, the majority consensus is "entertainment."
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 22nd, 2010 06:25 PM |
|
10th Post |
|
Les Harris Member
|
This website might be predicated on the existence of ongoing life in some form and in some other place after physical death but I am a member here (and on other sites) because I am NOT convinced and this is, for me, an information gathering exercise. I would have given little credence to the concept of the continuation of life in some form after physical death had it not been for the current thinking in quantum mechanics and particle physics, in which it is seriously postulated that there must be dimensions that we cannot observe and that without such other dimensions, observations cannot be otherwise explained. My reading is not confined to the EVP/ITC phenomenom; it also takes in fields that can be relevant, such as quantum mechanics and particle physics. I have not yet found objective evidence that life continues in some form after physical death. What I have found is instances of phenomena that cannot be explained by current knowledge - and this is a parallel of the current state of quantum mechanics and particle physics. If, in my lifetime, definitive answers can be found or proof provided of the postulated other dimensions, that could prove or disprove the concept of life ongoing in some form after physical death, which also postulates other dimensions. In the meantime, I will continue to gather information from all sources, including websites similar to this one. Whilst there is much objective evidence, the concept is not yet "proven" to my satisfaction. I had a good laugh at your survey. (I recently conducted two separate surveys, asking our peers what they believe the public perception is of paranormal research. Sadly, the majority consensus is "entertainment.") I have in fact asked a few of my peers what they thought about the concept of other dimensions and/or parallel realities. I must confess to setting them up in that I offered no underlying information. When I got the expected replies of "rubbish" and "impossible", I then showed them several recent papers in particle physics which postulate parallel realities. The response is usually long, thoughtful silences. I have not gone into the matter of EVP/ITC with any of them but there are two who have extraordinarily analytical brains and I might, after I have gathered more information, ask them for opinions. It could be very interesting. Les Harris
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 23rd, 2010 08:37 AM |
|
11th Post |
|
Old GUy Member
|
Perhaps I'm just being stubborn, but the statement isn't just claiming "existence of an ongoing life." The claim being made is that it's been "proven." I can't bring myself to reconcile with such a patrently false statement. It flies in the face of any reasonable interpretation of the scientific method. "Whilst there is much objective evidence, the concept is not yet "proven" to my satisfaction." Ah. Are you confessing to be a lurker here? I could only do that for so long before I'd have to open my big mouth. If you should find yourself in the company of two or more physicists, ask their opinion of Young's (double slit) Experiment. That always get them going. ;-)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 23rd, 2010 11:00 AM |
|
12th Post |
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
In that regard my friend, you are correct. When I state "proven" I am speaking for myself and others that have experienced evidence of life after death first hand. Keith
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 23rd, 2010 04:19 PM |
|
13th Post |
|
Les Harris Member
|
I am at a loss to know just how I can state any more clearly that I am NOT convinced that there is a continuation of some form of life after physical death. I am examining any and all information that I can find and will continue to do so until I reach a conclusion either for or against. Such conclusion might or might not be based on balance of probabilities. My knowledge so far does not include direct contact such as has been experienced by many people, the content and circumstances of which defy 'conventional' thinking. Many instances of apparent direct contact exist which cannot be dismissed out of hand. It is worth noting that some of the "explanations" offered by sceptics are just hilarious. If a first year science student employed the same logic offered in these explanations, they would would never make it to second year! I do not describe myself as a "lurker" - far from it. I will engage with anyone who demonstrates intellectual rigour in examining the available information. And, yes, the particle/wave conundrum well illustrates the many problems in quantum physics - for which only the existence of other dimensions can offer any tenable explanation so far. However, it would be a very courageous person indeed who dismisses the multiple dimension hypothesis by saying "nah, that's impossible". For a hypothesis to be dismissed, it must be shown to be incorrect, not rejected out of hand. I countinue to search. Les Harris
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 24th, 2010 01:39 PM |
|
14th Post |
|
Bruce Moderator 
|
Old GUy wrote: Only if garnered within the established laws of scientific method, practice, and principle: Old Guy, I am one of those Old Guy, retired engineers, raised in the belief that "reproducible and incontrovertible" are the Gold Standard of the scientific method by which the truth can be found. I now understand that there are some areas of investigation in which those factors don't work. There are some areas of subjective human experience in which the scientific methods' "reproducible and incontrovertible" standard simply cannot be used to measure what is true and what is false. And, lacking reliable physical instrumentation capable of detecting communication from the deceased, subjective experience is the only tool we have available. Before radio receivers existed the existence of radio waves could not be "proven" using the Scientific Method. Same goes for the present state of instrumented afterlife exploration. A reliable instrument is needed. Until such a device is available it does little good to chose to believe an afterlife exists, or does not exist. Lacking a reliable test instrument the Scienific Method has nothing to say on the matter. We are often left with the argument you make, "there is no scientific proof for the afterlife's existence, therefore it does not exist.' In my view a true scientist is someone who would, instead, say, "there is no scientific proof for the afterlife's existence, we have no instrumentation to test the hypothesis, therefore we can come to no conclusion regarding the afterlife's existence, yet." Then there are things like the Remote Staring Experiment run multiple times by Wiseman and Schlitz (on my website http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/relg-sci.html and the actual paper at http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/staring1.pdf) that demonstrate "reproducibly and incontrovertibly" that the scientific method itself is unreliable and is suseptable to direct, unintended influence of even the most rigorous, well trained scientist. I am also an Old Guy who has, through my own direct experience, proven to myself that our afterlife exists and that communication with verifiable information can be obtained directly from the deceased. I have taught thousands of others to do this for themselves. At this point we don't have a reliable instrument to prove that to anyone else. It can only be done through our own direct experience. My "proof" will never convince anyone else of our afterlife's existence. Until an instrument is available that method is all you, me or anyone else has to come to a conclusion regarding the Afterlifes' existence. So, metaphorically, instead arguing before radios existed that radio waves can't possible exist because there wasn't any scienific evidence, some of us are working at trying to build working prototypes of radios so we can test the afterlife hypthesis. Bruce
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 24th, 2010 02:13 PM |
|
15th Post |
|
Old GUy Member
|
Bruce, Les, Keith; How do you validtae an ITC?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jun 24th, 2010 04:21 PM |
|
16th Post |
|
Bruce Moderator
|
Old GUy wrote: Bruce, Les, Keith; Old Guy, The method I use and teach is: 1. Find a way to make contact and communicate with a person known to be decease. 2. Gather information from that deceased person you have absolutely no other way of knowing except via this contact and communication. 3. If you can verify that the information is accurate and true you have gathered evidence that this deceased person continues to exist in some form, somewhere. A place we call the "Afterlife." 4. Continue to use this method of gathering evidence until you arrive at a conclusion regarding the Afterlife's existence based on your own direct experience. This simple method has been learned by people in workshops around the world to gather their own evidence and prove it to themselves. In my view and experience both the volume and content of the evidence so far gathered comes down overwhelmingly on the side of the survival of our consciousness beyond death. I understand that you may not yet have gathered your own, convincing evidence. But that fact has no bearing on the question of survival of our consciousness beyond deat, the existence of an afterlife. In my view all it says is that the jury is still waitng for evidence. In essence, the world was not flat before explorers proved it was spherical. There just wasn't enough evidence to prove it wasn't flat. Bruce
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jul 9th, 2010 10:35 PM |
|
17th Post |
|
ArizonaEvp Super Moderator 
|
Old GUy wrote:
Greetings, I am curious about the equipment you claim to build. Since everything below the speed of sound is considered subsonic....what do you build? Regards, Jr Old Guy
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jul 11th, 2010 09:57 AM |
|
18th Post |
|
Old GUy Member
|
I have three working prototype detectors: isobaric subs, electret array, piezoelectric transducer array. Each sensor array is coupled through a FET-based mixer, a PLL frequency multiplier, and a laptop. I sincerely believe that the discovery of incontrovertible, repeatable proof of the paranormal, which meets the scientific litmus test, will come in an area of research as yet unidentified or possibly undiscovered. But today, there's nothing that meets the universally accepted qualifications of proof.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jul 12th, 2010 07:37 PM |
|
19th Post |
|
Vicki Talbott Moderator
|
I've stayed out of this until now, but you have to realize that thousands upon thousands of people have communed with their loved ones on the other side. If you don't 'know' this, then there is nothing and no one who can prove this to you, even after you cross over. Maybe you can help yourself or be helped by those whose primary purpose it is to do retrieval work. Good luck and Godspeed in your scientific endeavors. Vicki
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jul 13th, 2010 05:38 AM |
|
20th Post |
|
Old GUy Member
|
Vicki Talbott wrote: I've stayed out of this until now, but you have to realize that thousands upon thousands of people have communed with their loved ones on the other side. IMHO - Such statements are overgeneralized and based on heresay. There is no way to substantiate these claims other than, "I say so." If you don't 'know' this, then there is nothing and no one who can prove this to you, even after you cross over. The inverse argument is equally true. As a Christian, I do know that eventually all our questions will be answered. But when it comes to anything paranormal, it is naiive to believe that we can be authoritative because *we just know.* Last edited on Jul 13th, 2010 09:15 AM by Old GUy |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jul 13th, 2010 07:55 AM |
|
21st Post |
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
Hi Oldguy, While stating your opinion is certainly welcomed and encouraged, sarcasm is discouraged. We are fair here, and we are also peaceful. Please ensure that your future posts express good intent. Personal experience will always supercede the opinions of others. Thanks, Keith
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jul 13th, 2010 09:19 AM |
|
22nd Post |
|
Old GUy Member
|
I meant no sarcasm. Does that read better? It was the only thing that even felt sarcastic. At least... to me. We must be ever diligant in how others perceive what we post. It isn't so much what is written as how it is read.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jul 13th, 2010 10:55 AM |
|
23rd Post |
|
Vicki Talbott Moderator
|
Hi Old Guy, sorry if it seemed sarcastic. I meant no ill will. Vicki
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jul 13th, 2010 11:48 AM |
|
24th Post |
|
Old GUy Member
|
Vicki Talbott wrote: Hi Old Guy, sorry if it seemed sarcastic. I meant no ill will. Vicki Same here. No harm, no foul.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jul 13th, 2010 01:53 PM |
|
25th Post |
|
ArizonaEvp Super Moderator
|
Old GUy wrote: I have three working prototype detectors: isobaric subs, electret array, piezoelectric transducer array. Howdy Old GUy, Yes....you are correct in that: today, there's nothing that meets the universally accepted qualifications of proof. Obviously If there was; things would be a whole lot different. I myself have gone through a couple of different equipment building spurts. I constructed a detector using ultrasonic transducers. I could hear mice roaming around and the occasional bat looking for it’s belfry but alas…..nothing out of the ordinary. I have most recently approached EVP’s from the standpoint that not all….but; a lot of EVP’s are actually direct voice and micro-acoustic. Instead of electrets, my array uses 1 inch gold sputtered condensers. Do you have any recordings? If so I’d like very much to listen to them. Also, a while back I ran across a site that dealt with infra-sonic microphones. If you were so inclined: http://volcanomodels.sr.unh.edu/jbj/MICROPHONES/microphone_list.html Take Care, Ron P.S......With regard to: I sincerely believe that the discovery of incontrovertible, repeatable proof of the paranormal, which meets the scientific litmus test, will come in an area of research as yet unidentified or possibly undiscovered. IMO, the way things get corrupted, manipulated and/or exploited, I hope it doesn't happen anytime soon. L8tr Last edited on Jul 13th, 2010 02:19 PM by ArizonaEvp |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jul 13th, 2010 02:29 PM |
|
26th Post |
|
Old GUy Member
|
arizonaevp wrote: Howdy Old GUy, Old Guy as in crochety old man. Before I forget, LORD we miss AZ!!! My Mrs. is third gen Tucsonan. I've lived in the southwest my entire life. Miss it, miss it, MISS IT! Mice? Bats? Wrong end of the spectrum. Reverse the polarity.  IMO - There are two problems with EVPs. One relates to the other. Lack of documentation and RFI. To provide that pesky incontrovertible proof thing, you have to demonstrate that it's *not* a broadcast radio signal. Now it starts to look like a SETI project. Virtually all recorders are susceptible to RFI, unless specifically shielded to prevent it. I know of no such recorder that one can purchase. If I had a dollar for every breadboard circuit I biult on the bench that picked up radio - I'd have a dollar for every breadboard circuit I built on the bench. I have recordings - of trucks, thunder, cars driven by future hearing-impaired kids, ... I *thought* I had recorded the quake in Haiti, but decided the timing was too far off. Then there was Chile at 8.8 - nothing. Oaxaca - 6.2 and still nothing. I need an adjustable subsonic source. Like a whale, elephant, giraffe, or ... a US Navy submarine! I printed that PDF when I first ran across it. That was before Panasonic mixed up their product line. It's still a good refernce so I still have it on the wall. Jeff Johnson is a pioneer in subsonics. Good reading here: http://www.ees.nmt.edu/johnson_j/index.html If you're there or ever get there, give my regards to "The Old Pueblo." We'll be back. Someday...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Jul 16th, 2010 07:43 AM |
|
27th Post |
|
ArizonaEvp Super Moderator
|
Old GUy wrote:
I was born in Tempe when the city was a puppy. Moved to the Prescott area from Tucson about 12 years ago. Monsoons are here. Yesterday it was 105 in the shade and 65% humidity with no relief in sight. Reminds me of when I was on Guam in the Navy….working the flight line and praying for rain. Ya know; the skeptics only have 2 arguments against EVP….which really isn’t bad if you think about it. They are Apophenia / Pareidolia & Cross Modulation. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/electronic_voice_phenomena_voices_of_the_dead/ http://www.skepdic.com/evp.html Since I have no interest in fame or fortune, I don’t need to sit inside 10 Faraday cages in order to disprove cross modulation. (although I would like to set up my equipment in an anechoic chamber sometime) Reducing the chances of cross modulation is pretty easy. For example, I make up a word….like PolyRhythmic and print it out on paper. I hold up the paper and ask if anyone can tell me what the word is. After allowing for an appropriate response time, I announce what the word is so that it is in the recording. I hear polyrhythmic in the response section of the recording. I hold up a picture of my grandchild and ask for their first – middle & last name. I go to the pantry – or closet and grab an item (can of whatever….hot glue gun) hold it up and ask what the item is. So far so good. As far as your recordings…..yes please….I’d like to hear one or two. Something recent would be perfect. If you PM me I’ll send you my email address which would be good for a file size up to about 6 – 8 meg. For a larger file…. http://www.box.net/ can do up to 25 meg for free. Regards, Ron Last edited on Jul 16th, 2010 09:26 AM by ArizonaEvp |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 10:25 PM | |
| ITC Bridge > Members > Introduce yourself > Well, fudge. | Top |
