4Cell EVP Demonstration

by Tom and Lisa Butler
(Based on a Summer 2005 AA-EVP NewsJournal article) Updated May 2015

Abstract

Can discarnate personality communicate with people in different parts of the world by hearing (sensing) a question from one person, ascertain the correct answer and deliver that answer to someone else in a different part of the world? A series of EVP sessions based based on a specific protocol were conducted by four person teams. Coordination was via email and discussion board, and team members were in different parts of the USA. A person functioning as Requester thought of a question and told the question but not the answer to a person functioning as the Sender. The Sender communed in some way with his or her etheric communicators, asking them to tell the Receiver the correct answer via an EVP message. Once notified that a question had been sent, but not the question or answer. The Receiver conducted an EVP session to ask for the answer. A fourth person acting as the Scribe evaluated the resulting recordings for possible EVP and made first determination of what was said, if anything. The study indicated that it is possible to use EVP to gather information, but that there are limits to the kind of information that may be accessed.


Directors of the ATransC (formally the AA-EVP) had been looking for an effective has been in finding a way to make the recording of the phenomenal voices more reliable. There has also been a problem with practitioner ability, which varies considerably amongst people willing to participate in such studies.

One initiative to increase our understanding that has proven to be very effective is the 4Cell EVP Demonstration, which was conducted by association members and tracked in the Idea Exchange. The 4Cell project is designed to function as a test bed in which new ideas can be tried and the limits of EVP can be explored. As the 4Cell demonstration matured with more cells and more experiments on record, we anticipated being able to provide solid support for the existence of EVP, and the fact that EVP may be evidence of personal survival. Further, we expect this proof to be in a form that the scientific community will be able to accept, and therefore, feel obliged to repeat the experiments.

The 4Cell EVP Demonstration protocol is explained here. As always, we are available to assist researchers in setting up Cells to meet their research goals.

It is possible to apply this protocol to mediumship studies as well.

4cellProtocol

Each cell consists of four people:

  1. A Requester who thinks of a request to be given to cooperating etheric communicators. A request may be a question, such as, “Who was my favorite teacher,” or a request for action, such as, “Please tell the Receiver what I am wearing now.” The request should be of interest to the Requester. The request can be directed at a research question, such as, “What happens after the moment of physical death?” The Requester tells the Sender the request but not the expected response.
  2. A Sender who is given the request and then conveys it to his or her etheric communicators, asking that they send the requested information to the Receiver. This may be accomplished in any way the Sender feels will work. Part of the objective here is to allow the participant to invent a way that “seems” right. Since so much of this is intuitive, personal initiative may be more effective than constraining rules. If there is doubt as to how to proceed, we advise that the Sender meditates or contemplates on the question. The idea is to send the message psychically, but to also send it verbally and maybe even in writing. All are effective techniques for EVP, as all helps focus attention. The Sender then notifies the Receiver that a request has been sent.
  3. A Receiver who conducts an EVP session (or contemplates/meditates for mental mediumship), asking to receive the response to the request. There may be many receiving sessions and they may be designed to suit the Receiver. To maintain focus, the Receiver should be the only one conducting a receiving session for any particular cycle. If the Receiver thinks EVP are in the resulting recording, the sound files are sent to the Scribe. (Mediumistic messages should be prescreened by the Receiver for a sense of meaningfulness.)
  4. A Scribe who accepts what was received, if anything, from the Receiver and makes a first determination as to what is said. The Scribe then asks the Requester for the request and privately posts the request and possible responses to the other three members of the Cell. The results of collaboration amongst Cell members is documented in a standardized report. For ATransC sponsored Cells, the report is posted on the Idea Exchange for peer review.
  5. Other board participants are then asked to consider the offered response by functioning as a listening panel. The Cell’s determination of what is said remains as The Report, but comments from others are retained as a record of possible alternative considerations (peer review).

Cell members have been asked to rotate positions, but we have found that it is more important that the cell has some degree of recording success so we are now asking that each Cell has at least one experienced experimenter with some level of confidence that at least some messages will be recorded. The Cells were also asked to record on a regular, weekly basis but now we see that there are too many normal living interruptions. It is better that the group tries to record when possible, perhaps on a monthly schedule.

It is important that some recording schedule is maintained, otherwise, the normally geographically distributed group of people tends to lose focus resulting in eventual abandonment of the study.

Once an effective Receiver has been found and the Cell has had some initial success, rotating members into the Receiver position will help develop more overall ability of the group.

Considerations

In the event that one of the four members is temporarily not able to participate, the functions of Receiver and Scribe can be combined. But separation between the Requester and the Sender is required to address the possibility that the Requester is asking something that is emotionally biased. This also separates the expected response from the send/receive process. The reason the Scribe is asked to independently decide whether or not the request has been correctly responded to is to see if he or she is able to arrive at that conclusion without the influence of group-think unconsciously guided by the Requester.

The protocol does not require a specific type of question or technique for obtaining the answer. The reason for this is that the group dynamics are as much part of the research question as are the resulting answer. One of the predictions from this protocol is that a cooperating group will have better results than one that experiences internal conflict. The concept is that the rapport of mutual cooperation builds the kind of contact field thought to be necessary for trans-etheric influences.

The flexibility of the protocol is in the fact that the Receiver can use EVP, automatic writing, mental mediumship, any form of transcommunication.  If EVP is not used, then the Listening Panel can be referred to as something like a Witness Panel.

Evaluating Results

Since Cell members are usually scattered around the country, it is unrealistic to attempt physically supervising the experimental cycles: so many experiments by many different Cells over many months should provide sufficient information to assess the validity of the concept, even though individual results should be judged on a case by case basis.

Responses are seldom going to be decisively correct and many requests will require a subjective response. For instance, A possible answer to “Please recite Mary Had a Little Lamb” might be a verbatim recital, but more likely would be more arcane such as Lamb chops, Happy Mary, or baby sheep. As such, the determination as to whether or not the answer is correct must be made on a scale of reasonableness and the unlikeliest of the results. This is why the first decision is independently made by one person and that decision is preserved in the record.

After the Scribe sends the first determination to the other Cell members, the group collaborates to accept, modify or completely change that first determination. The results of this process are also reported.

Finally, the use of an independent Witness or Listening Panel of less invested people helps to avoid group-think. This final review of what the Receiver reported is most effective if one of the Witness Panel acts as a Judge to sort out potentially divergent opinions.

The three versions of the transcommunication: Initial determination by the Scribe; Cell member’s group determination; and, the version selected by the Judge are retained in the report record. Confidence in the usefulness of the answer is based on this report.

Results

At first, the effectiveness of the protocol was unknown; however, early Cell reports made it clear that the communicating entities were happy to participate and that they could do all that we asked.

4Cell 1 – Voices: Andrea Carr, Siobhan McBride, Karen Mossey and Sue Mousseau (James Jones replaced Sue in experiment four and then the group dissolved):

  • Experiment 1 question: “Does it take more of your energy to manifest a Class A EVP, and if so, please indicate your answer as ‘More energy’ or ‘No difference.’” Class B answer: “No difference.”
  • Experiment 2 question: “From what level in the Afterlife are you communicating with us?” Class B answer: “Level six.”
  • Experiment 3 question: “What can we, as receivers on the physical level, do to help facilitate communication from you, the transmitters in the spiritual?” Class B+ answer: “Just open up the portal.”
  • Experiment 4 question: “What is the purpose of our communication with the other side? What is it we’re supposed to be doing in order to help them?” There was no appropriate response recorded.
  • Experiment 5 question: “Can anyone (any dead former human being) on the other side be involved in EVP messaging to us?” Class C answer: Four distinct utterances in same file, the second being “Perhaps.”
  • Experiment 6 question: “Is there a reason that some spirits do not come through for us? Why would that be?” Class B answer: “Stop moving” and “That’s right.” Class B- answer: “Yes … people.”

4Cell 2 –Infinite: Mary Jo Gran, Rheta Conley, Shelly Morrison and Vicki Talbott:

  • Experiment 1 question: “Can you tell me the name of Jim Robinson’s make believe sister?” Correct answer: “Sissy Sally.” Class B answer: “Sally’s the name.” (Other appropriate answers were also recorded.)
  • Experiment 2 question: “Who is the artist and what is the name of the painting hanging at the end of the entrance hallway in Vicki and Pete’s home?” Correct Answer: “Marc Chagall” and “The Lovers.” Class B answer: “Who painted it? … Chagall did.”
  • Experiment 3 question: “What Did Keith’s Grandpa Hallmark give him, and also, it has been lost. Can they tell us where it is?” Correct Answer: “Cue stick.” Class C answer: “A cue” and “Christy know right where it is.
  • Experiment 4 question: “What are the names of Jim’s Montessori School teachers?” Correct Answer: “Vivian” and “Rosmund.” Class B answer: “Vivian.” Class C answer in same file: “Rosmund.”
  • Experiment 5 question: “What is the most common sign that those in Spirit do to let us know you are near us or that you have been around?” Class C answer: Not clear.
  • Experiment 6 question: “What was the name of the tavern where I (Vicki) met my husband?” Correct answer: “The Waterfront.” Class B answer: “Has a view of the bay.” (below)

Cell Name: CellOctetic

Demo 3 Question: “What were some of your misconceptions about death and/or life on the other side?”

Answer: Vicki told us that, “Braden (her son) wanted us to know that the answer ‘Regrets’ was a very difficult one for him to give.” The order of the EVP that was most important to the study  was: Class C “It’s just hard to answer this,” Followed directly by Class A “Regrets.” (below)

Vicki explained: “I think that he and his friends on the other side did not want to hurt their moms or frighten others—they discussed whether Braden could even say it. He knew I could handle it, but others might not be able to. The EVP came as you see it above. As I said, Braden wants us to know that this is an important part of our passing; our life review.”

Comment: Near Death Experience researchers appear to be in agreement that we do experience a life review, and that it is from the perspective of those with whom we have interacted during the lifetime. This review can be expected to be emotionally painful, but it is probably the foundation on which we build new spiritual understanding. The 4Cell results are amongst the very few we have seen indicating all is not heaven when we make our transition.

4Cell 2 –Infinite: Shell Morrison: “Review our lives”  (below)

Shell was functioning as the Sender during a 4Cell EVP Demonstration experiment, but when the Receiver did not record an EVP that was appropriate to the question, “What happens when we die?” she asked Sell to record for answers. Shell recorded this response, which is an astoundingly clear Class A.

Summary

Of the first eighteen experiments, eleven or 61% were seen as successful. The etheric communicators have had a very large number of possible answers from which to choose. For instance, in Cell Infinity’s experiment 4, asking for Jim’s Montessori School Teachers, the expected answer was given as “Vivian” and “Rosmund.” How many first names are there in the western culture? There must be thousands. The odds of a person guessing the correct name must be about the same as winning the California Lottery. What are the odds of selecting the right name twice in the same EVP?

Guessing eleven appropriate answers out of eighteen attempts must be similar in difficulty to winning the California Lottery eleven out of eighteen tries. The results of the experiments would be astounding just because of how much the answers have exceeded what would be expected for guessing. Since we know that the communicators are intelligent, aware people, the gratifying part is not beating the odds, but how cooperative they have been.

We wish to thank all of the Cell members for their participation in the experiment. We especially thank Shelly Morrison and Vicki Talbott for moderating the Idea Exchange forum and for helping everyone get through the complicated protocol. And yes, a hearty thanks to their etheric partners who have been so willing to help us learn.

Share

Leave a Reply