google-site-verification: google2ad725bdec78c8ae.html

by Tom Butler

A 2005 Gallup survey shows that just about three in four Americans believe in the paranormal. So the question that needs to be asked is, “With such a large percentage of our population interested in the paranormal, why has there not been more study of the paranormal?” The scientific community is largely funded with public money. For instance, the US Department of Energy Office of Science, NASA and National Science Foundation each received $62.5 million, much of which is earmarked for education.¹ Tuition fees do not cover the cost of universities and public funding is required. This means that science degrees are subsidized by the public.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a department of the Federal Government chartered to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare by way of funding research and development. It is funded by the public at the annual rate of around $7 billion. Yet according to the NSF in the 2006 annual Science and Technology report, “A recent study of 20 years of survey data collected by NSF concluded that ‘many Americans accept pseudoscientific beliefs,’ such as astrology, lucky numbers, the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP), and magnetic therapy (Losh et al. 2003). Such beliefs indicate a lack of understanding of how science works and how evidence is investigated and subsequently determined to be either valid or not.”²

“Losh et al” is a reference to an article in the Skeptical Inquirer. A further comment about “pseudoscientific beliefs” is based on a reference from the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOPS) now known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), which states: “According to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscientific topics include yogi flying, therapeutic touch, astrology, fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, alternative medicine, channeling, psychic hotlines and detectives, near-death experiences, unidentified flying objects and alien abductions, the Bermuda Triangle, homeopathy, faith healing, and reincarnation.” The celebrity skeptic, James Randi, is one of the founders and is the publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer.

According to the NSF, “The federal government provided 59% ($32.6 billion) of the $54.9 billion of academic spending on S&E R&D in FY 2009.” and “In FY 2009, the federal share of support for all academic research equipment funding was 55%.” and “Throughout the 1973–2008 period, fewer than half of full-time S&E faculty received federal support, whereas the share of postdocs who received federal support was more than 70%.” ³

So the answer to the question is that the organizations we are paying to help us understand and live with nature are the same ones that think we are uneducated about these subjects and misguided. Well, it is actually worse than that. The publicly funded organizations such as universities and the NSF are also very much aligned with the skeptical community which is determined to protect the intellectually naive masses (that is three in four Americans) from belief in anything that is not specifically supported by mainstream science. Their assumption is that, “if it is not accounted for in mainstream science, it is impossible and therefore cannot be.” The skeptical community has little or no research supporting their view of frontier subjects such as EVP and mediumship, so the net result is that they win their point by being the dominant group and discrediting research that does support the subject. In a very real sense, social pressure brought by the skeptics to potential research donors and scientists has and continues to prevent research that might prove or disprove our hypotheses. That is simply stopping progress to preserve the status quo.

One technique used to discredit a subject such as psi functioning is to put it in the same group as belief in a flat earth and the moon landing conspiracy theories. If one must be seen as unlikely, then all must be equally unlikely. But there is another factor involved in the success of the skeptical community. Many of the concepts involved in psychic ability (psi functioning) and survival are shared by religions. This leads to people thinking of such concepts as ghosts in religious terms such as demons and possession, rather than in terms of what is empirically supported. In his short essay, The Fallacy of Paranormal Democratic Science, David Wood explores the idea that some people assume knowledge of a subject by ignoring those who are possibly more experienced. The real answer to the question might be that we are not very clear about what we believe.

Psi studies are fairly well represented by parapsychology. It is true that parapsychologists are shunned by mainstream science, but they at least have a culture of collaboration and peer-reviewed journals. There are even doctoral programs in some universities. Parapsychology claims to study survival, but other than reincarnation, near-death and out-of-body experiences, that community shuns etheric studies as much as mainstream science shuns them.

The skeptical community will only change its mind about survival of personality if mainstream science begins to openly study the evidence and conclude that the evidence indicates a real effect, rather than our delusion. Mainstream science will not study our subject if we do not present it in a rational manner. Making research funds available for projects conducted with good science is one way that we can attract mainstream science, but the most important thing we can do is to develop a community in which evidence-based reports are held in high regard, and collaboration amongst researchers is seen as a natural part of learning. It is important that we learn how to talk about our subject so that we can accurately report our experiences and research results. Peer review will only be possible when we learn to respect knowledge. If we do not develop the culture of a scientific community, there is little hope that we will gain the respect of mainstream science.

You are a member of this community and in a very real sense, you control if or when our field will attract serious research. Learn all you can; avoid “assuming knowledge.”

1. American Institute of Physics, “Success: President Signs Bill Providing Additional Science Funding.” aip.org/fyi/2008/072.html
2. National Science Foundation, “Science and Engineering Indicator 2006: Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding,” nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm Reviewed 30 December 2012
3. National Science Foundation, “Science and Engineering Indicator 2012: Chapter 5: Academic Research and Development: Financial Resources for Academic R&D,” nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c5/c5h.htm Reviewed 30 December 2012

Part III
A Research Study into the Interpretation of EVP

Published in the Spring 2013 ATransC NewsJournal
Read Part 1 and Part 2

Brief

In the past two issues of the NewsJournal (Winter and Spring 2013), I described two research studies that examined the problem of EVP interpretation. The first study looked at experienced investigators’ interpretations of nearly 100 EVP, and the second one examined lay people’s interpretations of EVP that were recorded using “radio-sweep” techniques. Although no experienced EVP enthusiast will be surprised that listeners disagreed in their interpretations of the various EVP, many will find the exceptionally low level of agreement troubling.

In the first study, only 21% of the listeners agreed on the most common interpretation on average, and many of the EVP showed no agreement across listeners whatsoever. Agreement was even worse in Study 2. When people listened to EVP without knowing what the investigators who recorded them thought the EVP said, they agreed with only 6% of the words that the investigators heard. And, only 1 out of 360 interpretations perfectly matched the investigator’s interpretation. These findings are particularly troubling when we consider that the investigators presumably submitted these particular EVP because they thought that the sound clips were among the best they had recorded.

All EVP investigators know that particular EVP are often interpreted in different ways by different people, yet they often act as if they know what a sound clip actually says. The low rate of agreement in interpretations of EVP is obviously a concern for those who are interested in EVP, so in this article, I will tackle the thorny question of how EVP enthusiasts should deal with this issue.

Why Should We Care?

In many cases, whether an investigator’s interpretation of a particular EVP is “correct” may not matter very much. Those who record EVP as a personal hobby or do paranormal investigations for mere enjoyment don’t harm anyone when they confidently claim to hear something that most other people would not interpret similarly and that, in fact, might not actually be there.

But, in other cases, EVP interpretations have consequences. Most notably, when EVP are presented as the words of a deceased loved one, the messages they supposedly contain can affect people deeply. Simply believing that the words come from a loved one is sometimes reassuring to people, and if the message is positive, it can create great relief. But what about when the words seem to convey a dark or troubled message? How sure should an investigator be about the source and content of a message before delivering it to a deceased person’s loved ones? Similarly, homeowners who believe that their property is haunted sometimes invite paranormal investigators to examine the house, and such investigations often yield EVP. When should an investigator feel confident enough to relay a purported EVP message to the homeowners?

Even when the specific content of an EVP doesn’t matter much, confidently claiming to know what a particular clip says nonetheless seems dishonest and carries the risk of undermining an investigator’s credibility when other people do not hear the same thing. (Paranormal television shows are particularly bad about this, providing interpretations of EVP that are often inconsistent with what viewers themselves hear.)

What Should We Do?

As much as investigators would like all of their EVP recordings to be crystal clear to everyone, they very rarely are. Rather than sweeping this problem under the rug and pretending that EVP are clearer and less ambiguous than they really are, investigators need to address the issue head-on. Below I offer seven recommendations for improving the quality of EVP interpretations.

1. Don’t Be So Certain. The resounding conclusion from our two studies is that investigators should not be as certain of their interpretations as they often are. Investigators sometimes feel that they have special insight into the EVP they record, but in our two studies, only a very small percentage of listeners agreed with the interpretations given by the people who recorded them. Furthermore, given the low rate of agreement and the tendency for people to overestimate the likelihood that they are correct, investigators should express their interpretations in a cautious, tentative manner that conveys that their interpretation might not be right. Too often, we hear people assert “This EVP says…” when a far more honest and defensible claim would be “I think I hear…” or “To me, it seems to sound like….”
2. Don’t Share an Interpretation Until Others Listen. All EVP enthusiasts know that people’s interpretations of EVP are sometimes affected by what they think other people hear. In fact, it is often difficult not to hear what someone else said they heard. In our second study (NewsJournal, Spring 2013), we found that agreement with the individual words in an EVP jumped from 6% to 23% when listeners were told what the recording investigator thought the EVP said. The implication is clear: If we want to increase our chances of finding the best interpretation of an EVP, we must allow people to come to their own conclusions before hearing what other people think.
3. Offer Alternative Interpretations. When listeners suggest different interpretations of an EVP, any interpretation that is independently offered by multiple people must be taken seriously. If the interpretation is being shared with a client – such as a grieving family or the owner of a property that has been investigated – all of the most common alternative interpretations should be presented. It’s okay to admit not knowing for certain what an EVP says and to offer several possibilities.
4. Calculate an Index of Agreement. Every EVP enthusiast has had the experience of confidently arriving at an interpretation of a particular EVP only to find that no one else agreed with him or her. They have also had the experience of having another investigator claim “This is a Class A EVP” (which, by definition, would be interpreted similarly by everyone) when, in fact, no one else hears the same thing. Since we all assume that our own interpretations are reasonably correct (or, at least better than other people’s interpretations), the only way to find out whether our interpretation is plausible is to have several people – 10 at the minimum – independently listen to the EVP and privately record their interpretation. In this way, an investigator can see the percentage of listeners who agree with his or her interpretation (as well as possibly identify a better interpretation that more people agree with).
   But how much agreement should we require before claiming than an EVP says this or that? Each investigator must decide for him- or herself when to share interpretations with others, but let’s consider an analogy to put the problem in perspective. Imagine that your doctor detects symptoms that might or might not indicate that you have a serious illness. How sure would you like the doctor to be before he or she shares a specific diagnosis with you? And if the doctor conferred with other doctors, what percentage of other doctors would you want to agree with his diagnosis of your condition before he reported that you have a particular disease? More to the point, would you trust a doctor who said “I think that you have Disease X, but only about 20% of other doctors agree with me?” That’s roughly the average percentage of agreement that we found in our first study.
   Among behavioral researchers (such as research psychologists), the minimum agreement that is considered acceptable before data can be used is 70%. That is, if two independent researchers count, rate or interpret some aspect of people’s behavior, they must agree at least 70% of the time in their ratings or interpretations for the ratings to be reliable enough to use. That figure strikes me as a reasonable criterion. Investigators should not assert that an EVP conveys a particular message unless at least 70% of listeners independently agree.
5. Interpret EVP Word-by-Word and Encourage Partial Interpretations. As would be expected, the results of our two studies showed that listeners agree on individual words more often than they agree on entire EVP. This suggests that EVP should be interpreted word-by-word (if not syllable-by-syllable), with listeners indicating uninterpretable syllables by an asterisk. In our first, study we had the impression that listeners who interpreted every word sometimes “heard” words that helped a phrase make sense. Listeners should not try to make sense of the entire phrase but rather should simply write down each word that can be interpreted and ignore those that are unclear.
   Having a group of people give partial interpretations of only the clearest syllables may collectively provide a good interpretation. Although this idea remains to be tested, I suspect that a group of people who each deciphered only the words (or syllables) that are clearest to them will generate a better interpretation of an EVP than any given person.
6. Challenge Others’ Interpretations (Gently). Many investigators hesitate to question others’ interpretations when they disagree with them. Most of us do not want to provoke disagreement and conflict, particularly when we know that some people can become rather ego-involved in their interpretations. In addition, knowing how unclear most EVP are, many investigators may disagree with another interpretation yet have little confidence in their own interpretation of a particular sound clip. Yet, failing to indicate when one does not hear another person’s interpretation may give an impression of implicit agreement, leading an investigator to be more confident of his or her interpretation than is warranted.
   When challenging an interpretation, the approach should never be “You’re wrong, and I’m right,” because, on average, one’s own interpretation is no more likely to be correct than anyone else’s. Rather, the message should simply be “I’m not sure that I hear that. To me, it sounds more like ….” When such disagreements arise, as they inevitably will, the automatic and default recourse should be to get more independent interpretations, with no effort to pressure people into hearing any particular thing. The goal should be to find the best translation – not to prove that you are right.
7. Leave Ambiguous EVP Uninterpreted. It’s okay to say “I have no idea what this EVP says.” Particularly when an analysis of agreement across several people shows little or no agreement (as occurred on many of the EVP we used in our studies), the most honest conclusion is that the EVP is uninterruptable. In some cases of uninterruptable EVP, the vocal characteristics may be so pronounced that an investigator will nonetheless conclude that the sound clip is a bona fide EVP, but that it is simply not possible to decipher it (just as one can hear voices through the wall of a hotel room but not understand what they are saying). However, in many cases, the failure to arrive at an interpretation that others independently agree with should lead an investigator to reconsider whether the sound clip is an EVP

Conclusions

Low agreement in EVP interpretations is the elephant in the room among those who are interested in EVP. All investigators know that low agreement is a problem, but they hate to confront it because it casts a pall on the entire enterprise of recording and interpreting EVP. Yet, failing to confront the issue simply creates more difficulties. Consistently acknowledging the agreement problem and encouraging investigators to be honest and cautious in how they assert their interpretations is an important first step. And following recommendations such as those offered here will help to restrain us from claiming more than we actually know.

Read Part 1 and Part 2

With a Ph. D. in social psychology, Dr. Leary is a research psychologist who studies topics related to self-awareness, motivation, and emotion. He has conducted research on topics such as reactions to social rejection, the effects of excessive self-attention, people’s concerns with their social images, and the relationship between personality and behavior. He is on the editorial boards of several scientific journals in social psychology and recently released a psychology course on DVD entitled “Understanding the Mysteries of Human Behavior.”

Editor’s Note

For an additional study of how people hear EVP, please refer to the article EVP Online Listening Trials in the ATransC online Journal.

“Radio-sweep” is a generic name for EVP thought to be formed using sound produced by sweeping a radio dial. In principle, it produces a form of EVP referred to as “opportunistic EVP.” Please review Locating EVP Formation and Detecting False Positives and Radio-Sweep: A Case Study. Also see the article on page 9: “A Two-Year Investigation of the Allegedly Anomalous Electronic Voices or EVP.”

Of the many forms of paranormal photography, faces sometimes found in photographs of turned off television screens seems to be the most unusual. In spirit photography, the presence of an “extra” or apparition in the photographic frame is consistent with the concept that we who are still in the flesh are providing sufficient energy (perhaps ectoplasm) with which the entity can become visible to the sensitive film or digital circuitry. In Photographic ITC, faces and other features that can sometimes be found in the optical noise of photographs is consistent with principles thought to be involved in Video ITC and EVP. But the presence of a face on a television screen, as if it were a photograph cut out and glued to the screen to be photographed, does not agree with any of the hypotheses presented thus far.

By the way, we have seen enough examples of this form of phenomena to accept the validity of these examples.

Thus, we are beginning a collection of such pictures with the hope that a pattern will emerge that will either fit this form of nonphysical phenomena into existing hypotheses or suggest a new one. So please, if you have an example of the phenomena as shown here, send it to us along with permission to use it in our study and details of how the picture was taken.

This picture was taken in Las Vegas, Nevada and originally published in the October 1995 National Spiritualist Summit magazine. You can see a little boy taking his first steps. The picture was taken by the boy’s mother who is also the sister of the lady whose upper portion of her face is visible on the turned off television screen.

A confirming point to this is that it is reasonable for the deceased sister to “show up” for the boy’s first step. The face was not visible when the picture was taken.

Please Note: We have recently had a complaint that this picture must be a fake because the camera is aimed more at the TV than at the boy–odd for such an important event in the Boy’s life. We, as a matter of fact, are more interested in the face on the wall than the boy and have cropped the original picture, which was indeed, centered on the boy.

Also, it is an interesting characteristic of phenomenal faces in all forms, that the bottom of the face is frequently obscured in some way.

It is important that you do not let your natural suspicions keep you from the opportunity to learn about these phenomena.

We know that this picture has been used in a preview for the movie, White Noise. Universal received permission to do so.

Originally published in the Fall 2003 ATransC NewsJournal.

This picture, which was cropped from the original photograph, appeared in Le Messager No. 37, the journal of the French ITC group, Infinitude. The picture was submitted by Français F. Sabatier & S. Barrez of Marseille. The television was turned off at the time and the face on the screen is thought to be a guardian angle.

We have collected other such photographs from various sources, as has Jacques Blanc-Garin of Infinitude. Jacques observed that, except for one example, all that he has seen have been associated with a small child. Also, the television is turned off in just about every example.

Originally published in the Fall 2003 ATransC NewsJournal.

While the other examples on this page appear to be faces formed “in” a turned off TV, this is an example of an apparently paranormal feature formed in light reflected from a turned off TV screen.

We will refer to the experiencer as “Mr. D” to respect his privacy. The middle picture is a cropped and enhanced version of the original shown on the left. Mr. D was taking a picture of his pet, and the rather large screen was incidental to the picture. As you can see, the feature is formed in the noise from the flash. The picture on the right is the same as the middle, but we have traced important features in an attempt to make the feature more easily distinguished.

As we see the picture, it is of a man sitting on an easy chair or couch with his left hand on the left armrest. Based on his posture, his left leg would be turned nearly against the chair, knee nearly under the arm rest. As we can see in the original picture, he is wearing an unbuttoned dark red jacket that has piping around the buttons and collar. The jacket has a high, stiff collar that is close to the throat. He apparently has short dark hair and is facing to his left side, face slightly lifted as if appealing to God. His left hand either has six fingers that are more serpentine than bony or he has a very large ring on his index finger. He is either holding something like the neck of a guitar in his right hand and close to his chest, or his right hand is there and it has six fingers; however, if fingers, they appear to be bony.

Originally published in the Summer 2006 ATransC NewsJournal

(Initially published in the Winter 2009 ATransC NewsJournal)

Abstract

This study is based on the question of whether or not a practitioner’s ability to record for EVP can be influenced by the use of binaural-beat synchronization of mental processes. According to research conducted by The Monroe Institute (TMI), neuron activity in the two hemispheres of the brain are synchronized with and entrained to the beat-frequency between left and right audio signals supplied to the ears via a stereo headset. A slowly changing beat-frequency can change this synchronization, known by TMI as a “frequency-following response,” so that the listener experiences meditative-like states of awareness. A CD containing a frequency set designed for meditation and a CD containing the same set of frequencies plus a set intended to facilitate access to what TMI refers to as an “inner-self helper” were used. The CDs were only labeled as “A” and “B.” Volunteer EVP practitioners were asked to conduct a series of ten recording sessions using each CD and make a self-evaluation of any changes from their expected success rate. No appreciable change in success rate was reported by the volunteers.

Introduction

Association TransCommunication has conducted a study to determine whether or not the use of binaural synchronization can improve a person’s ability to record for EVP. Two audio CDs were used by each participant. One included a set of frequencies developed by The Monroe Institute (TMI) designed to facilitate meditation. The other was the same but included additional frequencies derived from analysis of a functioning trance-channel. (This technology is referred to as “Hemi-Sync®” by TMI.) (See The Monroe Way for background.) Here is a summary of the results:

Protocol

These are the instructions each participant received.

Overview

The objective of this experiment is to evaluate the effect binaural synchronization has on the quality and quantity of EVP. Monroe Institute Hemi-Sync® technology will be used.¹ See the attached article, The Monroe Way.

What is in the kit?

You have been assigned a tracking number, and all of your results will be recorded by that number rather than by your name until after the results have been evaluated.

Audio Recorder

You are all being asked to use the same equipment and technique. If you have not indicated that you already have a Sony ICD-B26 digital voice recorder that you will use, one will be mailed to you in a separate package.

Assumptions

It is assumed that:

• You have an audio patch cable and know how to connect a recorder to your computer and how to record the audio into the computer.
• You have an audio management program and know how to use it for audio capture, editing and saving.
• You have a audio CD player that you can use for these sessions.
• You have a set of headphones that you can use.

If this is not the case, please contact us before beginning the trials.

Memory Storage

A USB thumb drive has been included in the kit. You are asked to use the memory device as a means of returning your recordings to the AA-EVP. The SanDisk memory stick has a folder named Documents which contains the folders:

2008 Hemi-Sync Trials

mp3 and wav formats of the Hemi-Sync CDs A and B

2008 Hemi-Sync Trials Results

Twenty folders for storing the results of twenty sessions.

The other folders are empty

A “U3” icon will appear in the bottom-right tray. Click on that and click on the “Eject” button before removing the memory stick from you computer. A window will tell you when it is okay.

Audio CD

Two 36 minute audio CDs have been included. One is marked with a large “A” and one with a large “B.” These are the sound files containing the Hemi-Sync tones and what you will be listening to for the EVP recording sessions.

Notepad

A notepad has been included and you are asked to keep notes related to this experiment. When you listen to the resulting audio files, you will be asked to note what you hear and how well possible EVP agree with what was expected, and provide a brief description of how you feel about the circumstances.

Instructions

A set of instructions have been included, which explain the protocol.

Protocol

Please conduct twenty recording sessions during which you will make three one-minute recordings for EVP. Since Hemi-Sync leads your level of awareness to a deeply relaxed state, and the sessions are nearly forty minutes long, it is recommended that you conduct only one session in a six hour period. You are asked to complete all twenty session in three months, and to do this, you will need to average slightly more than three sessions every two weeks.

Please do not listen to Hemi-Sync while driving or during activity that requires your full attention. Just as with meditation, be sure that you are fully alert after using Hemi-Sync.

To begin

Copy the 2008 Hemi-Sync Trials Results folder from the memory stick to your computer. You will use the folders to store session recordings.

Find a comfortable location where you are not likely to be disturbed. A relaxed sitting position with a pillow to support your head and a throw to keep your body comfortable is recommended. You will want to be able to hold or pick up the recorder and turn it on to the record mode three times while you are very relaxed. You may also want to make written notes. (If you record verbal notes for future transcription, please use a second recorder.)

If you prefer, you can use the files in the memory stick to play the sessions through an mp3 player or directly from your computer. The native format is the one on the CD, so it is first choice. The objective is to have the highest quality playback, but the second objective is to have all session played on the same device.

Test the equipment and make sure that your recorder, player and headset are all functioning correctly. The two CDs are identical except one has an added set of Hemi-Sync frequencies intended to help you function as a mental medium. Listen to one of them all the way through so that you will know what to expect. Take advantage of this session to set the levels in your player and in the recorder. The alert tones in the CDs are a little softer than expected so you will want to turn up the volume in the player so that you will not miss them.

Each CD is arranged as:

0:00 — 10:00  Intro surf and up to working level

10:00             Record now sound

11:00             Stop recording sound

                        Return to working level

20:00             Record now sound

21:00             Stop recording sound

                        Return to working level

30:00             Record now sound

31:00             Stop recording sound

                        Brief return to working level

34:00 — 36:13 Return to C1 verbally guided

36:14 — 36:15 Silence

Questions

Before beginning a session, think of three questions you will ask and/or who you wish to contact. Begin a fresh page in the notebook with:

• Date
• Time you expect to begin
• Current weather conditions
• Session Number
• Write a brief comment about your sense of wellbeing, energy level and attitude about the session.
• Leaving space between each question for further comment, write what you will ask or say to the etheric communicators.
• Write down the number in the recorder that will be associated with the three recordings for this session.

 It is important to use questions that are meaningful to you so as to draw on your personal energy and focus. If you have a loved one in the etheric, you could ask for a personal message. Think of the kind of questions you have had success receiving results for in the past. The questions should be interesting to your communicator, as well. For instance, experience has shown that asking the same question session after session is met with fewer and fewer responses and maybe even complaints. The entities are pretty good at telling you what they have seen in your home, so you could put something on a table and ask what it is (a teddy bear or plant would be better than a rock). You could also ask them to tell you what you are wearing.

During the session

Make yourself comfortable so that your head is supported and there are no pinch points that will cut off circulation to an arm or leg. Your body will cool down during the session, so you may want to have a throw nearby. The Hemi-Sync tones will “take” you to a meditative level of consciousness. All you have to do is relax and enjoy the trip. If you have an itch, scratch it. If you need to reach for the throw, do so. The tones will gently take you back to level.

Think about your question. Visualize who it is that you wish to hear from. Desire to record the response you are hoping for. When you hear the “record now sound” turn on the audio recorder and say out loud your question or request so that it will be recorded, and then remain quiet until you hear the “stop recording sound.” When you do hear the tone, turn off the recorder and allow the tones to take you back to level. Be brief so that there is time for the EVP.

Begin thinking about your next question or request and repeat this process for two more record periods. After the third period, relax and allow the narrator to count you back to full consciousness. It is a good idea to express your appreciation for your communicators and tell them that you would like their help next time, as well.

Number of sessions

Please conduct twenty sessions beginning with the CD marked “A” and the next with the one marked “B” and then alternate between the two so that every other session will be with CD “A,” ending with CD “B” for session twenty.

Each session has three recording periods for a total of sixty one-minute recordings.

Analysis of the recordings

Copy the recordings into your computer and save them as a Windows PCM (*.wav) file (or Apple equivalent). If you are using Audacity, then “Export as a wav” file. The recorder will hold more than 60 minutes, so please save the files in the recorder, as well. Be sure to lock the recorder when you have finished.

Label the files in your computer as EVP Folder > 2008 Hemi-Sync Trials folder and then:

Your number-Session 1–CD A period 1
Your number-Session 1–CD A period 2
Your number-Session 1–CD A period 3
Your number-Session 2–CD B period 1

and so on for all 20 sessions and 60 recording periods for a total of 60 files.

During analysis, you will be looking for EVP, how many per one minute session and what you think of their relevance to your question. Please make a record of the results in the provided notebook. This is not a contest for the most EVP or most meaningful responses. The objective is for you to decide if an EVP has been recorded using the same standard as you have used in the past.

Assessment of results

After finishing the last (20^th) session, please answer the following questions in the provided notebooks:

1. Please describe your playback setup and environment.
2. Did you record EVP during the Hemi-Sync sessions?
3. If so, explain your view of the results.
4. Did you notice any difference between the Hemi-Sync sessions and past experience in your usual quantity and quality of EVP?
5. If so, please explain.
6. Please pick one of the following:
   1. I saw no change in my ability to record EVP between the Hemi-Sync sessions and my normal sessions.
   2. I saw a slight change in my ability to record EVP, but the Hemi-Sync did not seem to be the reason.
   3.  There was considerable change in my ability to record EVP when I used Hemi-Sync.
7. True or False: I now prefer using Hemi-Sync for my EVP sessions.
8. True or False: I would recommend Hemi-Sync for anyone wanting to improve their ability to record EVP.
9. How would you change the protocol for this kind of experiment?
10. Please provide a statement of how you feel/felt about this experiment. Do you see value in this sort of effort? Did you benefit by participating?

Finish

Please save the sixty sound files into the USB memory stick provided in the kit, and return that and the audio recorder, the two CDs and note pad to the AA-EVP. It is important that the recorder is returned so that future experiments may be conducted using the same hardware.

Thank you very much for participating in this experiment. We will give you a report about our findings as soon as we can finish the data reduction.

1. The Monroe Institute, 365 Roberts Mountain Road, Faber, Virginia 22938, 1-866-881-3440, 434-361-1252, www.monroeinstitute.com.

Results

The short report is that the study did not produce evidence that use of binaural synchronization improves Quality and Quantity (QQ) of EVP.

Ten people participated in the study. All used the same type of recorder, but background sound, where they recorded and when was optional. Six kits were returned completed and two returned blank. As of this writing, two were not returned. An eleventh participant withdrew before beginning because they found the tones irritating.

No obvious trend was evident after the resulting QQ of EVP was assessed and the opinions of the participants were considered. It was felt by some that they did better using their own recorder and using their more usual techniques. Most liked Hemi-Sync as an aid for meditation, although some found it too difficult to remain sufficiently alert to record during the allotted times.

Conclusion

Hemi-Sync is very effective in facilitating meditation. This experiment was inspired by the personal experience that it also facilitates mental mediumship. Not knowing what makes an effective EVP practitioner, it seemed reasonable to test whether or not what worked for mental mediumship would work for EVP, which is thought to involve essentially the same process.

The results of this trial must be considered inconclusive. An improvement in QQ was not evident, which is the necessary measure; however, the experiment itself was not conducted in a manner that allows reasonable assessment of the technology. Please see the “Recommendations”

Sincere thanks to the volunteer practitioners: Vicki Talbott, Richard Shenk, Keith Clark, Leslie Taylor, Billy Deluca and Teri Daner for their hard work to complete the experiment. We learned much that will guide us on to new efforts.

Recommendations

The experiment should be conducted in controlled conditions in which participants can be monitored, and the results can be more formally reported. The sound files lacked an induction process that might help a person have a better sense of the process and more effectively set listening levels. The record begin and end sounds were often missed. Participants should also be familiarized with Hemi-Sync for a time before beginning the series of experiments.

It is our belief that binaural synchronization may be an effective tool for improving QQ, but it is clear that more qualified researchers need to be involved. This study involved a complex protocol, many recording sessions conducted by volunteer practitioners and very poorly designed sound files. Meditating with Hemi-Sync is a pleasurable experience, but this assessment is based on the CDs available from The Monroe Institute. By comparison, the ones provided for this study did little to give the practitioner a sense of “induction.”

Also see listening panel trials on radio-sweep examples
A Research Study into the Interpretation of EVP

Abstract

Radio-sweep technology, popularly known as “ghost boxes” or “spirit boxes,” is examined as a technology used for recording Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP). The results of a session reported in the ATransC Idea Exchange were used for a blind, online listening test similar to previous tests reported in the online ATransC Journal as EVP online listening trials. The generally negative results are reviewed and reasons why the technology may not be suited for trans-etheric communication are discussed.

Introduction

“Radio-sweep” is a technology that involves rapidly changing the tuning of a radio receiver to produce a sound track composed of bits of sound from whatever radio programming is on the air and from whatever radio station is detected by the radio at the time. In theory, the communicating entity somehow arranges for the radio programming of local stations to be producing the required sounds at the moment they are required and that the sweep will detect those sounds at the right moment to produce the desired message.

Radio-sweep technology, popularly known as “ghost boxes” or “spirit boxes,” has become a popular technology represented by its advocates as a way to record EVP. It can be accomplished by manually tuning a radio, but a number of modified radio receiver devices are now being sold as EVP recording devices ranging from a few hundred dollars to over $1,200. A survey of the literature produced by manufacturers indicates that there have been no controlled studies of this technique to establish that it actually produces EVP.

As part of the Association TransCommunication mission to provide guidance to members about trans-etheric phenomena, this technology was examined to evaluate its capability of producing EVP, how it might do this and whether or not it can improve understanding of trans-etheric communication. There have also been frequent complaints that examples of radio-sweep results did not seem to actually contain intelligent information. At the same time, many members have reported great success with the technology, and this dichotomy required that such an evaluation included an examination of our current assumptions about EVP formation.

A companion article, EVP Formation, describes how EVP are thought to be formed and addresses current understanding of how EVP is heard and reported.

Online Listening Test

A study of radio-sweep was conducted using an example considered typical of the technology. This example was posted in the AA-EVP Idea Exchange with the comment:

“I used a Mini-Box and heard”:
Reported EVP: “Big Circle.”

“I asked: ‘Is the Big Circle there?’”
Reported EVP: “Circle, Big.”
Reported EVP: “Is it —-?”
Reported EVP: “Is it?”
Reported EVP: “Might be!”

“Let me know what you hear. I only cut out bits of silence and my first comment to make it fit.”

This example was obtained using one of the Mini-Box radio-sweep devices sold by the apparently defunct Paranormal Systems for $300 (as of early 2009). The manufacturer describes it as “…a useful tool and a new way to establish spirit communications.” The example for analysis was selected because eight of eight members commenting in the thread stated that they heard the example as it was reported.

With the exception of “is it,” which is a clearly enunciated phrase, I was unable to hear the examples as reported. To assure that it was not just my inability to make out the reported message, I broke the example into the same segments reported by the practitioner and posted them on ATransC.org as a new listening test. They were labeled as “Example 1” (through 5) and an unlabeled text field was provided for the website visitor to indicate what was heard. This same procedure has been used for previous listening tests resulting in average correct word recognition of 25.2%. See: EVP Online Listening Trials

The test was stopped after forty-one entries were received because a decisive outcome had been obtained. The results were:

Example 1: “Big Circle” — Zero recognized words (%Rw = 0.0%). Common response were “This is Butler,” “puffin” and “buckle.”

Example 2: “Circle, Big” — Zero recognized words (%Rw = 0.0%).

Example 3: “Is it —-?”  —Ten of a possible 123 words were reported for %Rw = 8.13%. “It” was reported, but in many different contexts other than what was expected.

Example 4: “Is it?”  —Forty-one of a possible eight-two words were reported for %Rw = 50.0%.

Example 5: “Might be!” — Zero recognized words, %Rw = 0.0%. Commonly reported words were “Hi,” “I’m” and “Spring.”

Here is the original sound track.

Observations

• Examples 1-3 and 5 are mostly sound fragments that would most likely be reported as artifact noise if found in a digital recorder.
• Example 4, “Is it,” is composed of two clearly spoken words, and its high %Rw indicates that the listening test works. If such a clearly spoken example did not have a high %Rw, then it would be necessary to question the validity of the test.
• The “Is it” segment is a case of a randomly, but naturally occurring sound segment. Story telling is then used to make it seem part of a meaningful response.
• The use of short examples has been questioned; however, in the other trials a one-word example scored the lowest while two-word examples did overall as well or better than the three or more word examples. The previous trials indicate that, if there are recognizable words present, then there should be at least a few correctly reported words for each example. See: EVP online listening trials

Radio-Sweep Audio Output

Potential voice and voice-like sounds in radio-sweep includes:

1. Chaotic sounds that are inappropriately given meaning (sometimes known as Pareidolia).
2. Clearly spoken words that a practitioner incorporates into a story about the message that is meaningful.
3. Sounds that invoke meaningful impressions in the practitioner, which are then explained as messages.
4. Transform EVP formed from the noise produced by the sweep.

Altered Perception and Story Telling

In EVP Formation, a companion article intended to explore how EVP are formed, it is noted that there are a number of ways mundane sounds are mistaken as EVP. The most common way follows the process:

1. The practitioner asks for information during the recording.
2. Sounds are heard, either live or on the resulting recording.
3. The practitioner “hears” what is expected in the sounds.
4. The practitioner reports what was “heard” and listeners hear what is suggested.

This is not malicious intent, but a natural response to trying very hard to find a particular kind of information in a chaotic signal. This appears to be especially common in if the chaotic sound has a staccato pace, as we have seen the effect in both radio-sweep and EVPmaker output.

An interesting explanation as to how practitioners and listeners might find EVP where there are none is found in the Gestalt Laws of Perceptual Organization, which include:

The Law of Proximity: Stimulus elements that are close together tend to be perceived as a group.
The Law of Similarity: Similar stimuli tend to be grouped; this tendency can even dominate grouping due to proximity.
The Law of Closure: Stimuli tend to be grouped into complete figures.
The Law of Good Continuation: Stimuli tend to be grouped as to minimize change or discontinuity.
The Law of Symmetry: Regions bound by symmetrical borders tend to be perceived as coherent figures.
The Law of Simplicity: Ambiguous stimuli tend to be resolved in favor of the simplest.

A reasonable conclusion is that the practitioner heard what was expected. “Big Circle” is an important part of ATransC culture, and hearing this term after asking for someone in the Big Circle to comment is natural, especially considering the low quality of the sound file. The next step would be to imagine a story that would allow what was thought by the practitioner to have been said to make sense. Next, the listeners simply conform by hearing what they are told is present in the recording.

Intuitive Tool

Either the actual sound file had the reported utterances (except for Example 4, it did not), or if not, the practitioner may have intuitively sensed the response. By this, I mean that the radio-sweep output could be used as a technology for divination much as other intuitive aids such as Tarot cards or tea leaves. When Tarot cards are laid out for a reading, the practitioner has an array of visual/intellectual cues that can be used to develop a story; but the meaningfulness of the story is largely the result of the practitioner’s intuitive ability. In the same way, a radio-sweep sound file contains audible cues from which a story may be developed, but the meaningfulness of the story would be largely the result of the practitioner’s intuitive ability. In effect, the practitioner becomes an oracle intuitively reading the radio-sweep output.

It should be noted that this observation is not intended to detract from the practitioner’s ability. Other research has clearly shown that various forms of mediumship and/or intuitive sensing are valid techniques for trans-etheric information access. It is not my intention to say that information reported by radio-sweep practitioners is not meaningful or accurate. Methods of evaluating the information content, other than those used in this study, must be used for such a determination.

Radio-Sweep as a Source of Noise for Transform EVP

As discussed in the article, EVP formation, the traditional method for EVP is the recording of the phenomenal utterances by transforming available audio-frequency noise into voice. In fact, it has been shown that virtually any noise is apt to be transformed into voice. The primary output from radio-sweep is noise, and as can be expected, it is common to find examples of transform EVP in the output sound file.

The presence of transform EVP in radio-sweep output is a confounding problem for the evaluation of the technology. Radio-sweep can produce EVP which results in meaningful information; however, the evidence indicates that, when transform EVP is produced using radio-sweep, that technology is being used as a novel way to produce noise for ordinary EVP formation. The radio-sweep output does not appear to be phenomenal in itself.

Transform EVP Formation and Physical Mediumship

To compound the problem of evaluating the veracity of radio-sweep for EVP, it has been noted that some practitioners do produce EVP using the swept dial of a radio as a sound source. The rarity of such practitioners suggests that other processes are involved.

Recent observations indicate that the ideal audio-frequency energy for transform EVP formation is both chaotic favoring human voice frequencies (200 to 4000 Hz) and with many short transients. For instance, a recorder with a lot of noise but without a lot of amplitude changes is not as effective as a recorder with noise that has many perturbations in the noise heard as clicks, pops and very short (stuttering-like interruptions in the noise. As it turns out a very rapidly scanned radio spectrum often produces such noise. For example, the radio-sweep results we have heard reported by some practitioners as EVP, and that do appear to be EVP, have been produced using a manual sweep on a radio with a round tuning dial. Rapidly turning a small tuning dial from stop to stop (probably half a second) results in a sufficiently short “dwell time” on individual stations that only bits of voice are heard, much as if a phoneme file was being used instead of radio-sweep.

EVP produced by radio-sweep should be formed of many voices and music components, yet in the meaningful examples produced by some practitioners, the voice is typically all one person speaking for the entire sweep. This is what would be expected for transform EVP using the radio-sweep noise as a sound source.

Direct Radio Voice (DRV) such as that produced by Marcello Bacci and Anabela Cardoso, meaningful messages are produced from radio broadcasts that are thought to have an etheric origin. This is thought to be a form of physical mediumship produced by Bacci and Cardoso using a radio as a sort of high-tech séance trumpet. This is a very rare form of phenomenon that may also be produced by some EVP practitioners.

In other words, some practitioners appear to produce meaningful and reliable EVP using radio-sweep technology. However, once again, the radio-sweep output does not appear to be phenomenal in itself.

Violation of Self-determination

While the idea that we have self-determination or free will is faith-based, it does raise an important question. I am not aware of any instances in which we have been forced to do something by our etheric communicators. In fact, there are many examples in which they seek to protect us. For radio-sweep to be a viable technique for EVP, it seems necessary that programming is exactly as required for the intended message. That implies that radio announcers are forced to speak words that are required for the message. If this is the case, then it is a clear violation of our self-determination. In effect, the radio announcer is forced to say “Hello Tom” at the exact moment a practitioner sweeps the dial past that station if the intended utterance is “Hello Tom.”

Discussion

Why did eight of eight listeners on the discussion board report hearing what the examples were reported to have said while online listeners did not? Perhaps the suggestion of what will be heard in not so clear sound is all that is needed to entrain the mind of the listener to hear exactly that. This tendency to hear what is suggested is most evident with examples that are of very poor quality. EVPmaker using live voice and radio-sweep examples have such a confusing, staccato pace that they tend to confound the mind, making it difficult to “lock onto” the actual sound stream. The result is that the listener may be forced to depend on instructions for what is to be heard.

The three techniques that have been decisively shown to produce EVP are audio recorder using noise (transform EVP), EVPmaker using allophones and speech synthesis. All three depend on available physical energy and processes for voice formation. This is discussed in the article, EVP Formation. Radio-sweep depends on the availability of the right sound being present at the exact moment the sweep selects that station. In fact, the entities appear to use most efficient methods for communication and do not routinely make people do things for the sake of communication. We are aware of no precedent indicating that EVP have been formed by first creating physical energy and/or causing physical processes. The only trans-etheric influence we have seen evidence for appears to manifest as the subtle energy usually described as “psi energy.” The processes most commonly influenced by psi energy are random, and in EVP, this is seen as the influence of random noise. There is no empirically demonstrated evidence we are aware indicating the entities are able to cause someone to do something in order to communicate via EVP.

It is important to note that when evaluating radio-sweep, it has been demonstrated that the noise produced by the sweep process is sometimes used for transform EVP. As such, it is possible to find a few words formed from the noise, but in this mode, radio-sweep is just an expensive way of producing noise for voice formation.

We have been examining radio-sweep since an ATransC member began working with it years ago. While we have not been able to find a reason to think the technology produces EVP, we have found substantial reason to think it does not. Certainly one cannot permanently close the door on any technology, but until properly designed research produces empirical evidence that radio-sweep produces EVP, our policy must be that radio-sweep does not produce EVP as advertised.