Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/13/2021 in all areas

  1. Back in May when I participated in the Perlin Noise experiments, nearly every image contained my beloved dog, who had passed away in mid-February. Initially, I thought the images had somehow been transferred/projected from my mind onto the screen that I was seeing. In this experiment, I gathered nearly 100 images, and concluded that this just wasn't the reason. Occasionally, I will sit with the live stream of Perlin noise and my dog is still evident within them, and often surrounded by other dogs and cats. The timing of the experiment came at a really good time, as I got quite a lot of comfort from those images and I know that she is still with me, even though I can't physically see her.
    2 points
  2. https://www.ipati.org/publicacoes/InContact03_en/
    1 point
  3. Yes Jeff, I talked to Michael Lee yesterday and said I want to help him to promote this great piece of sw-engineering he made. I mean this is a professional tool especially designed for making spirit voices audible that are deeply buried in interference and noise you get for free! The setup is a little complicated but not that hard to do. I will write a small how-to as a one-pager how to do it and later I will make a video too and share it. @Michael LeeMaybe you can give me some descriptions for the user parameter settings represented by all those sliders. Then I would work that into my one-pager. I also would like to put your Spirit-Communicator files as an zip archive into the sw section together with my "manual". Would that be ok?
    1 point
  4. The program has a few machine learning models to reverse things like additive noise, and quantization artifacts. Also, it has a primitive "speech model" that adds formants it finds to a "buzzing" glottal pulse. The machine learning models were trained on a 30 min speech of Gen. David Petraeus speaking to Congress, so it's funny when German is trying to be spoken through it. We'll try to get you "hooked up" with the program. It requires a good CPU. It requires a few steps to install, including Anaconda or Miniconda (A Python environment), and may take about 5-10 GB of disk space - not because my program is particularly large, it's just that Python and end-users don't mix
    1 point
  5. Hi Steve and thank you so much for your reflections! In fact this paper was my first and I today see its structure as a little cluttered since I tried to realize a very wide scope with it, which is the basic characteristic of a treatise, and it ended up in a little bit of this and a little bit of that. However I think it's ok so far if you consider it was my first paper and it was a huge one too. I felt very early the need to not only document what we are doing but also to draw conclusions from our results since this is the basic method used in science. Regarding the issue of publications I must admitt that Varanormal so far was not the best place to publish papers. We started as a forum and are evolving slowly in what I would call a reseach community. We are not that far to discuss technical papers with a wider scope yet. In fact you are the first one who did an internal review of my paper. I hope Varanormal at least will become a place where we can pre-publish a paper in the closed area of the community to identify typos, logic fallacies and bad argumentation. Only after this refinement I would dare to publish a paper outside of Varanormal. This is the reason I appreciate your lines so much because this is the start of making our papers more professional. If we issue papers with a well structured content, proven facts and comprehensible argumentation and conclusions outside varanormal, scientist will raise their eyebrows and maybe start to think, "Hey those guys are taking seriously what they do! Let's have a look". I would love if we would have some volunteers here with preferably academic background like you and Gismo for doing peer reviews. And then, after the papers were battle hardened this way we can fire them at the scientific community. Up to now I have only one comment or external review for my paper here, https://www.paranormalstudy.com/treatise-on-the-phenomenon-of-spirit-voice-manifestations-in-noise/ I know that Michael Lee also writes great papers. If what we do will become successfull outside of Varanormal this will hopefully boost our motivation to write more papers. Thanks for correcting my views on social media. I had some bad impressions from ghost hunting groups on FB here in germany and certainly my view was incomplete at least. Regarding documentation there is another issue. I would like to develop an ITC standard protocol form either in Word, Excel or as editable PDF everyone can use to log his sessions. It should contain informations about techniques, setup, environmental conditions, the experimenters psychic profile, the datafile (audio/Image/Video), timestamp and lenth of spirit messages in the file, applied processing methods and interpretation. The confirmation of the interpretation from a listener panel could round off this document. Again we would be able to exploit our work deeper and to do meta-analysis or studies over the structured data later, even more if we would store the the data in a cloud. I think scientist would reward this work as another attempt to establish scientific methods. One very simple approach without much additional data I made is here:ITC-Transcript Stream5_04.docx Last but not least you addressed one of the issues that is making me sad frequently. In the quest for finding the perfect ITC technology we don't spend enough attention to the content of the spirit messages in my eyes. In most cases what the spirits say is degraded down to the question if it makes sense or not and can it be used to prove our techniques as usable. But there is so much more what they tell us about their emotions, fears, their world, our world and ourselves. We don't address those most intimate utterances appropriatly in my eyes. I hope once a good technique is established we can listen more to what they say and what this means for us. Yoe see there is enough work to do.
    1 point
  6. Andres, great job with this paper, which I just got around to reading! I have not yet perused Varanormal for further discussion on this, other than comments here. You probably continue this discussion in the Coherer paper, which I will read next. I have a few initial reactions. First, have you thought about publishing this paper, other than on Varanormal? One place that has a lot of paranormal papers is Academia.Edu. It’s for reproducing papers that have already been published. I suppose you could count Varanormal as the source publication. However, I would recommend the document be copy edited, as there are some typos. Your findings are mostly replications of what other ITC researchers have found, approaching it with novel methods, which adds to its veracity. For example, the changing of messages on re-listening, the operator effect, the irrelevance of different pink noise sources, and enhancement by looping. Alexandre MacRae famously unhooked his radio setup and got the same results, so his radio electronics were not that important. Spirits PKed the microphone directly. However, your electronic genius is definitely at play, as your setups are very sophisticated and make a big difference. You have some original findings, like the deterministic and pseudo-random noise successes, improvements with hardware and sound processing, and the use of signal processing AI (with Michael’s help). I’m not sure if your reverse speech findings are original, but your theories about it are stimulating. What intrigued me most was your naivete about the field of reverse speech, which gave you a certain unbiased objectivity in the discovery of reverse speech messages. Other ITC experimenters have detected messages in reverse speech, but it’s not limited to ITC. It is found in regular human speech as well. It was reported in music tracks in the 1970’s, and David John Oates generalized it to all forms of human speech starting in 1987. Your one theory (of many) about time and consciousness probably comes close to an explanation. I believe Tom Butler has some thoughts about this phenomenon as well. I’m glad you credit Tom and his website AtransC for its contribution, especially for providing a forum for structured approaches to understanding ITC. AtransC is still active, but not heavily trafficked, and is being gradually archived as Tom moves into retirement. So I think Varanormal is now the happening place! You say that there are no social media sites devoted to serious ITC. That’s not true. They are not all “ghost” groups. Do a search on Facebook and you will see. (Thanks to Karyn for turning me onto this). Your views on the limitations of science are spot on. Scientism is the bane of all scientific fields, not just ITC. In parapsychology, it was quickly discovered the that normal methods of scientific method were inadequate, and unique models were developed. We should do the same with ITC. Your suggestions regarding future directions of ITC, especially on how to rebuild community, are excellent! I hope readers take note. Your categorizations and interpretations of the content of messages is important. I wish more people would do this. I cringe when a spirit reports that “failure counts” as it brings up my fear of karmic suffering on the other side. But my favorite, a consequence of my inner adolescent, is “Andres has flatulence.”
    1 point
  7. Absolutely fascinating post, Karyn! I love those direct dialogues between humans and the spirit teams. I frequently come across Swejen Salters name. She also was mentioned in messages I received last year. She sems to be a kind of a team leader on the spirit side. I was also pleased to see technical equipment in one of the pictures. They seem to have a lab over there.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.