 |
| |
| 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: lance, Keith Clark, fratka, ArizonaEvp | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
lance Moderator 
|
Hi to all. I am still developing this method at present, but what I have been wondering, is how come Claus had so very clear images in his research and we have never able to get to that standard? Was he doing something different to modern day (loop effect)? What I am saying is, there has been alot of talk about people will see images or make images out of anything, but when Claus performed expriements with the method there was no mistaken what he captured.. Many people have said to me, 'thats to really!' It must be faked, but I believe that Claus is one of the true researchers and out (like all of us) for the truth... Any thoughts on this matter.. Take care, Lance.  |
|||||||||
|
Keith Clark Administrator 
|
Hi Lance, Yes, Claus Schreiber's images are amazing. I know his technique was somewhat different from what most people attempt today, and his equipment was also considerably different from what we use today. But when it comes down to it, I think it has a lot to do with the person and their "psycho-spiritual" aptitude (mentioned by Konstantin Raudive during a phone conversation with Mark Macy - see WorldITC.org) I'm sure a good work ethic helps also. What we don't usually hear about are the long years he and other pioneers spent to achieve their results, and all of the ups and downs they had to go through before they achieved these results (in some cases) Yes, many of the results achieved by pioneers in this area still burn brightly as evidence for survival after death. I have hopes that very soon, we will again experience such amazing examples of communication with the other side. Keith |
|||||||||
|
lance Moderator
|
Thanks kieth, so basicaly keep trying and applying... will do, thanks again.. Lance. |
|||||||||
|
lance Moderator
|
Hi Kieth, I want to double check the process of the loop..? The video cam is facing the TV (Not in record mode, just watching so to speak the TV) is that right? Then the phono lead goes from the Video cam to the VCR (aireal input), then a scart from the VCR to the TV , No cable or aireal attachments, but TV is on and set to AV. Then press record on the VCR? Is this the process, or not? cheers Lance. |
|||||||||
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
Hi Lance, It would be your choice as to whether you wanted to even use a vcr at all - it's not necessary. In the past they used decent VCR's to play back the video at a slower speed, in effect giving them slow motion or frame-by-frame playback. The most common practice is: Pointing a video camera (on a tripod) at the tv. Run a cable (RCA usually) from the output of the camera into the av jack of the tv. Turn the tv to AV (or "line) in. Adjust the brightness, contrast, and focus of the camera and/or tv to achieve the desired feedback loop. Record on the video camera. Some people choose to record the actual video with a second camera. It may give you more flexibility as far as how much of the screen you are actually viewing. Keith |
|||||||||
|
lance Moderator
|
Ahh right I got you! so how do your manage to get the image without slowing it down to frame by frame? I know alot of questions But I would like to explore this part of ITC...cheers Lance.. Last edited on Feb 18th, 2007 08:26 PM by lance |
|||||||||
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
Hi Lance, Well, that's exactly right. You do have to view the video frame by frame. That's why people usually only make very short videos, because they can end up with hours upon hours of footage to go through. Keith |
|||||||||
|
lance Moderator
|
Hi Keith, So what is the best video cam in your opinion, digtital or tape? and how do you get the short film off and on the pc to anaylise? any thoughts? |
|||||||||
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
Hello, I have no opinion on whether a camera should be tape or digital.............mine's minidv, it's digital tape. A digital camera would help quite a bit, because most likely it will have digital output (firewire, USB, etc.) into your computer. Otherwise you need a special card/video card to be able to convert RCA inputs into computer format. You will also need a software program that captures the video onto the computer from the recording. I use Pinnacle Studio 9........it is also likely that Windows Movie Maker may work for some people. I use media player classic to view the video frame by frame. Keith |
|||||||||
|
lance Moderator
|
Thanks Kieth.. Would you say that the video loop is a specialist part of ITC (on its own) or interegrated with the water reflective as a whole trans-video subject, do you see what I mean?  |
|||||||||
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
Yes, I understand......Well, I suspect some day there's going to be so many ways of communicating with the afterlife, we're going to call it just that.......communicating with the afterlife. Basically, it all has to do with energy of one form or another. I consider the reflection(water) photography to be different because of: The use of water and The absence of a video feedback loop. In fact, the only common ground reflection photography and video itc has is the use of a video camera to record it (and the experimenter, of course). Please note "reflection photography" is not a standardized term - I just use it in reference to the water methods. Yes, I think they're both using the same kind of energy but I prefer to categorize them as different methods because of the procedures involved. Keith Last edited on Feb 25th, 2007 12:17 AM by Keith Clark |
|||||||||
|
lance Moderator
|
Hi guys, On performing the loop, what should you be aiming to see? For eg, the a tunnel of loop moving away from you? or do we need to beyond that to get to the white flashing blob vision? Or is it personal preference? |
|||||||||
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
Hi Lance, It's going to vary with each experiment you do. I believe the most ideal thing to see would be a fading in and out of a whitish cloud - where you would see the faces would usually be in between the fading. I think in order to receive a face which would take up the whole screen you would need to have a 1:1 ratio - meaning you wouldn't zoom in past the edge of the screen, you would be able to see all of the tv. This is also very hard to accomplish. If you zoom in farther, then it is usually understood that the faces will also be smaller. Keith |
|||||||||
|
lance Moderator
|
Hey thanks Kieth, I looked at a website in France of two a ITC research where his screen breaks in four plusating blobs of white clouds. Is this common praticesd, or not? |
|||||||||
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
Hi Lance, I don't think there really is a standard as far as specific methodology goes. Each experimenter usually goes with what ends up working for them the best. Most likely you will find what works by viewing the recording and making mental notes of which effects produce the best pictures for you. I did try to mimick the technique that Pascal uses, but could not duplicate that effect with my digital camcorder. It simply would not work. Keith |
|||||||||
|
lance Moderator
|
Hi Keith.. Yea I see where you coming from.. I also can't produce the split 4 screen with my Digital cam. Glad I am not the only one. regarding the plusating blob of light that we are aiming for, At present I have this, but it is at a slow rate (of plusating) I have seen some that a very flickery and fast plus, how do I achieve that? any suggestion. |
|||||||||
|
lance Moderator
|
Ok I think i have got it!! I have used a 28 inch TV flat screen today and came up with the right feedback I was looking for.. (the right texture and colors) The cam was placed just over a meter away from the screen and once the loop was acheived, I slowly zoomed in to it going a little bit past the screen itself to take me into the color. Due to my expriementing,I found i couldn not achieve this screen via the PC mointor.. see what you think? So I will be working with the same equipment from now on and see where it takes me. Now honest opinions, does this look right to you guys??     |
|||||||||
|
fratka Moderator 
|
If the succession of frames represents the wavering effect you get from the feedback loop, then yes. It looks right! Particularly the first frame. Good job Lance, now you just need to make contact and take some pictures. ;) Frank |
|||||||||
|
lance Moderator
|
hey thanks Frank.. Any idea on making contact, or is it just time and patients lol |
|||||||||
|
fratka Moderator
|
Making contact needs a few things that we all possess...time, patience, and focusing of desire. Good luck and remember, you can learn something from all types of contacts. Even the bad ones are worth it!  Last edited on Mar 9th, 2007 01:28 PM by fratka |
|||||||||
|
lance Moderator
|
thanks Frank, tell me I have been tuning into the loop better today, what do you make of this image? |
|||||||||
|
lkimberley Member 
|
Hi lance, Looking good like Franks suggested...I also read playing music and maybe have some kind of noise when doing this helps. Let us all know! Laura |
|||||||||
|
fratka Moderator
|
Lance, My first impression of the capture is the sun reflecting off a body of water. I can't say I see any structures. Are you recording the loop from different angles? Apparently it can make a difference. Klaus would record from an elevated camera position...pointing down at the TV monitor. Frank |
|||||||||