SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Box of Fiends

by Mark Edward, Apr 25 2009

200px-devil_commands_poster2“A technology now exists that will allow you to communicate directly with the dead. Gone are the days of psychics passing along messages from beyond. Now we have the ability to hear the voices of those who have passed and communicate, in real time, through a highly specialized device. The results speak for themselves.”

Uh huh. Yeah right.

Ever since I wrote away for the blueprints for “Spiracom,” a device mentioned in a footnote from John G. Fuller’s book “The Ghost of 29 Megacycles,” I have been intrigued by the completely absurd concept that somewhere a machine exists that will allow me to talk with dead people. When I shared my findings briefly the first time I met Randi back in the 80’s, he laughed out loud. We both agreed that the concept was just too harebrained to pay any attention to. What person in their right mind could buy into such a product, much less endorse it?

Unfortunately the answer many years later is that there are many people hotly involved in this folly. The claims are all over the Internet on a daily basis telling us that we can now not only chat with deceased Aunt Clara, but dial up spirited conversations with immortals like Thomas Edison.

Really?  Then what becomes of the obvious question I have posed to mediums like Rosemary Altea:

If you can reach these folks, then why not get in touch directly with the spirit of Albert Einstein and find out how to neutralize all the nuclear weapons on the planet in one swoop and really do humanity a service?”

Of course mediums or their new fangled “technicians” cannot do this or even offer a reasonable answer to why they cannot (or will not) do this. Rosemary offered this sage insight to me when I did an off- camera interview while working on the “Speaking with the Dead” segment of Penn & Teller’s “Bullshit” series:

“I prefer to work with individuals one on one.”

Oh okay. How noble of her. That will help mankind and put you on the big map won’t it Rosy? I suppose telling us Aunt Martha wore a green hat and had a rose garden is better news from “the great beyond?”

As far as I can tell this whole fol-de-rol got its start with Thomas Edison himself, supposedly an avowed believer in the paranormal. Read the full account here:

http://www.sdparanormal.com/f/Edison_Psychophone_and_ITC_Technology.pdf

Then contemporary culture fell into the rift back in 1953, when William Sloane wrote the sci-fi book “Edge of Running Water,” which concerns an electrophysicist, Dr. Julian Blair, who is attempting to construct an apparatus that will enable him to communicate with his dead wife.  Sloane wrote two highly popular books, both novels concern themes that were used by his contemporary, H.P. Lovecraft: “obsessed scientists pursuing forbidden knowledge”. We can all relate to that can’t we? I mean, conspiratorially speaking: if it’s forbidden, it must work according the general rule of woo, right?

boxiThe “Edge” story went on to be loosely adapted for a 1947 thriller starring Boris Karloff, “The Devil Commands.” A fun little romp into the macabre featuring linked corpses hooked up to a machine that captures dead voices. It’s an excellent  B movie showcasing a marvelous characterization of the sleazy medium; “Mrs. Walters” by veteran character actress Anne Revere. Worth seeing if you want to see where the current crop of scoundrels got their selling points. Now we have contemporary sleaze-ball “scientific types” pitching the same appliances. The devil commands indeed. boxii1

From new found friend and fellow phony phone box investigator Paul T:

“Perhaps the worst of all of these is Chris Moon, Mr. Moon who also claims to be in direct contact with Thomas Edison through a device known as the Franks box. The Franks box is basically two radio receivers scanning in opposite directions of each other creating a random noise. Chris Moon claims to be one of the few who can interpret this random noise and speak directly to the dead like in a phone conversation. Individuals are paying upwards of $1000 for a single session. There are of course many stories of people being unhappy with their session then Chris would come back later and tell them that they have finally contacted their loved one but the information will cost an additional fee. A true scam artist. “

Where would our movement be without these losers and what better fodder for a Skeptologists episode?  These are the sorts of winner take all magic peddlers who need to be stung by their own stingers. Fair warning is now given that I have received a spirit message from a really nasty rotting and putrefying dead entity that told me it may be shambling its way to your door soon Mr. Moon. Don’t expect a pretty voice with glad tidings.

box-iiBelievers and their leaders beware: If you are reading this, might I suggest that you turn your dials away from Attila the Hun, Hitler, Jack the Ripper, Lizziy Borden and Jeffrey Dahmer?  They don’t like to be disturbed or appreceiate unsolicited calls and our newly upgraded machines here at The Skeptologists Lab have a “specialized” call forwarding option. Ready to talk?

 

I have also put out a line to some knowledgeable living people and we may have a breaking news story if we can swing it. Moon and Frank Sumptionare now taking reservations for their “Telephone to the Dead. ” Does this include rollover minutes or are there weekend rates?

I doubt it. But if you want to call up their “operator” and arrange a “special treat” for them, contact Dina Everling at 303-525-3045. This stuff is ripe for a take down. Time to kick some woo ass. Like Rosemary Altea, it only takes one or two well positioned news stories to put them out of business or at least temporarily on notice with the fact that people with a brain are not going to put up with this imbecility.  BTW: Where’s the FCC when you need them? Speaking to dead people? Ahhh hem… Isn’t that false advertising? Aren’t there laws against promulgating superstition and fortune telling over the airwaves?

BTW: I saw a ray of hope on the street yesterday:  I was on the train coming to work and a homeless guy had on a tee-shirt on that read: “I See Dumb People.” Brilliant.

237 Responses to “Box of Fiends”

  1. John Paradox says:

    Also reminds me of a Mystery Science Theater 3000 film, The Dead Talk Back. Haven’t watched it for some time (available in a set from Rhino) so I don’t recall the details.

    In addition, the ” Chris Moon claims to be one of the few who can interpret this random noise and speak directly to the dead like in a phone conversation.” reminds me of ‘speaking in tongues’, which is a total misinterpretation of what supposedly happened in the Bible.
    Acts 2:10-12 (King James Version)

    10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

    11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

    12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
    (emphasis added)
    So, the Apostles were ‘speaking’ in Other Languages, not some incomprehensible babble.

    J/P=?

  2. Bryan says:

    It is wonderful seeing an article like this. We have been following the misadventures of the “Box” and the people pushing it for over 7 years. It also helps that we live in the same state as the primary suspects in this case.

    The fact that people like Moon are able to scam people in a time of mourning for thousands of dollars is horrifying and they need to be stopped.

    They have all of these claims like “This is a continuation of the device that Thomas Edison was working on before he died.” and that they need these “Spirit technicians” to communicate with the other side. However none of these claims have any possibility of verification. In fact claims like the Edison one have been proved wrong.

    Unfortunately due to the way that the media has portrayed people in the paranormal field, this type of behavior is allowed and even invited.

    We need to do everything we can to expose frauds like this and the many more that are out there.

    We have started a website that shows the facts about Thomas Edison that will hopefully help people understand the truth and regain this great inventor some of his reputation.
    http://www.telephonetothedead.com

    Thanks,
    Bryan
    http://www.rockymountainparanormal.com

  3. MadScientist says:

    @John Paradox: Ah, good old “glossolalia”. I really creeped out an ex-gf one evening when I started “speaking in tongues” in my sleep. She told me about it the next day and I told her it’s a load of crap and that I have no control of what my tongue does while I’m asleep. Unfortunately she believed in the supernatural and apparently I must be possessed by the devil; it doesn’t help my case any that, as my siblings would say, I often act like the devil.

  4. Andrew says:

    Ah, the indifferent power of suggestion. It doesn’t care who you are, or what you believe, but it will certainly take advantage of what you believe; and the few whose abilities to sucker people by preying on their curiosity, sense of wonder, emotions, and beliefs, is damn near perpetual. These people invite the swindlers into their homes, but because they want something magnificent to color it, not explain it, they are, in effect, victims of both the ploy, and their own acceptance of it.
    Rationalized explanations are dry and obliterate the romantic. Although, sorry paranormal advocates, you reap what you sew, as you willingly allow yourself to be duped by others, and self-duped (which isn’t too hard, since I’ve convinced myself I’m the only one who isn’t.) You go to the movies and participate in that “temporary suspension of disbelief.” Unfortunately, for those being suckered by twenty-first century snake-oil salesmen, that suspension of disbelief not only disregards any hope of rational debate about their belief, but it can last their entire lives. Yeesh.

  5. Mark: “BTW: Where’s the FCC when you need them? Speaking to dead people? Ahhh hem… Isn’t that false advertising?”

    Sure it is, but try and prove in court a psychic didn’t speak to the dead, and further, that the psychic, though failed, didn’t try with all sincerity. 100% success isn’t a requisite for advertised, ahem, ‘services’.

    “Aren’t there laws against promulgating superstition and fortune telling over the airwaves?”

    Not in the US. First Amendment. Every TV preacher out there is promoting superstition and predicting one’s future (be good = Heaven, be bad = Hell).

    I don’t like it, but I wouldn’t change our free speech guarantees. Besides, the line of defense against superstitious nonsense oguth not be legislated from far above. Education is the key, not prohibition.

    Dowsers have taught us that all one needs is a metal box full of wires and tech-looking gadgets with fancy knobs and dials on the front. You can claim it does whatever you want. In a country of 300,000,000 people plenty will believe. And if it doesn’t work upon demonstration they’ll believe it will next time.

    If just one percent of one percent of Americans believed it and would pay, say, $99 for the device, that comes out to $2,970,000.

    OK, I gotta go. I’m off to Radio Shack……

  6. TonyaK says:

    I am happy to see the skeptical community taking notice of a fraud like Christopher Moon. Not only does he claim he can talk to dead people via his special device, but he also claims to be one of only a handful of people who can do so. Any attempts to “test” him via any means closely resembling actual science, and any attempt to discuss this device with him using rational thought have been either ignored or refused. In fact, it has been my experience that when he is criticized openly by a member of the paranormal community, he does not respond at all, but one or more of his friends comes to his “rescue.” Chris and his magic talking box were featured on the recently aired “Door to the Dead” on TruTV. Watching him interpret static to reveal the name of a mysterious demon was actually quite comical. It is one thing to continue to pollute the world with bad thinking. It is something else entirely to take financial and emotional advantage of people who are grieving the loss of a loved one.

    It seems all one has to do is throw together some electronic gadget and make a ridiculous claim in order to cash in. What’s next? A text messenger to the dead? Twittering from beyond the grave? Faxing through the veil?

  7. Reap says:

    Oh yes Mr Moon and his wonder claims such as being one of 30 out of 6.7 billion on the planet who is effective when using the box. The only thing he is effective at is making himself look like a con artist. If that weren’t bad enough his mother is a ‘chosen one’ too and I believe Chip Coffee is one of the clan. That whole group of moonatics are nothing more than a bunch of attention needy cons. They don’t even give the very device they have the credit it deserves.They claim the box is a ‘wonderful tool for the paranormal community’. If that box works half as well as they claim then it a device more incredible than any mankind has ever known.I think the unwillingness of Moon to make such a claim is very telling.
    And if Mr Moon has been ‘chosen’ then who is it that told him to charge people for the use of it? Was it god? I guess it is a good thing jesus didn’t charge for his words of wisdom. Think of what he could of charged being the son of god and all.
    Anyone who calls Dina Everling could you please tell her Reap said “hi”? That is sure to get you a response far more entertaining than what you could get from a session with the box,over 18 only please she has a terribly dirty mouth

  8. Amanda says:

    I am so glad to finally see other communities taking interest in this contraption. The paranormal community has been speaking out against this for some time now. Of course, there are the lunatics who believe in it, but these are the same ones who likely tout orbs as entities from the beyond. I do not usually care what people believe or have faith in, but I do not believe in scamming people out of their hard earned money. I cannot stand by and allow this contraption to be billed as scientific or anything other than a broke radio. We as the human race have some kind of responsibility to protect those who cannot think critically for themselves and stop scam artists like Chris Moon from taking advantage of them, especially grieving families who will often find themselves at their lowest point and are seeking closure.

  9. Cambias says:

    If the frauds are using real radio receivers to put on this show, it seems some skeptics with a transmitter might have some fun…

  10. Chip Coffey says:

    STOP MAKING FUN OF US OR I WILL CHOKE YOU ALL WITH MY PINK SCARF!!!!

  11. Sharon says:

    Yes i do believe Moon is a phoney but Ive also worked with various “Ghost Boxes” (shacks hacks, Joes box,Mini box plus and a couple different Franks boxes) These devices do work. I also do sessions for people but I do it for free NO CHARGE!!!!Yes I am getting communication but theres is still no proof as to who or what I am speaking with.
    Sharon

    +

  12. Vagrarian says:

    I reviewed EDGE on my blog; the concept is fascinating, but c’mon, in real life? Sheesh.

    By the way, Sloane’s other book, TO WALK THE NIGHT, is better than EDGE.

  13. Mark Edward says:

    Sharon:
    No proof of who or what you are speaking with? Hmmmmmm.
    Could it be Adolph Hitler then? Does the voice have a German accent? Or Perhaps you have reached out to Ted Bundy or Ed Gein?
    If the voice has a Chinese ring to it, maybe it’s Attila the Hun?
    Can you be a little more specific?
    A Scottish brogue might indicate Burke or Hare, etc.
    When can we set up a session?

  14. Frank Sumption says:

    The continuous cry of the skeptic “please dear god! just make it go away!”

    • Mr Stu dislikes WOO! says:

      The continuous cry of the believer “Oh why won’t you evil skeptics leave us alone! Why do you keep bothering us with logic, reason and common sense! Why do you insist on having evidence that’s not based on anecdotal, pseudoscientific blind faith! You all have closed minds… we believe what we believe and NO ONE can tell us different!”

      No offense there Mr Sumption, but in my book you are just as bad as Moon. Sure you don’t charge for the use of the box and you don’t sell them either, but DAMN SON, you sure did open a big can of stupid with your broken radio.

      Also, before any of you start spouting off “you don’t know what your talking about, what research have you done with the box”, I’ve done some time around a “Franks box” and still do “sessions” with a Shack Hack. As of yet absolutely nothing of value has come out of playing with these devices… actually no, I take that back. Something of value has come from using these devices. It has shown perfectly how pariedolia (and basic human psychology) works when it comes to hearing, or seeing what one wants to, or has been conditioned to hear or see.

      Fellow Skeptics, before taking this “debate” any further with these box “researchers”, please keep in mind you are debating with people who are very conspiracy theory minded, antivaxers, 2012 Nibiru lemmings, 911 truthers, chemtrail conspiracy theorist, believe that the swine flu was designed by the US government to kill off the Mexicans, and so on and so on. All one has to do is go to these links to get a taste of what these “researchers” are about:

      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EVP-ITC/
      http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SDWR-EVPForCures/
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SDWR-CaseFile-ReachelleSmith/
      http://frank.xm.com/

      and of course absolute fraud:

      http://www.thetelephonetothedead.com/

      Enjoy!

  15. Frank Sumption says:

    Like everyone else, all the “experts” on both sides, y’all make alot of assumptions and claims but never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never do any of you ever ask me, the one that first made the boxes, anything about it. Too damn busy making your claims and judgments while not knowing anything about the subject. Nor do you stop and ask what came before. Just Spircom–hardly, try close to 30 years research on these technologies by the Europeans, try looking up EVPmaker, which I used before I came up with the boxes. Alas, too much to ask of a skeptic to check their damn facts! BTW, even I think Spiritcom was probably a hoax.

    Just incase you take Moon at his word, he did not invent the box, nor is it product of Edison. I made it! I don’t sell the things and I hardly need some duffus to approve it before I can use it.

    Frank Sumption

    • TonyaK says:

      When your work is published in a reputable scientific journal, I’d be happy to take a look at it.

  16. Frank Sumption says:

    Just one more note–seriously! I do not sell this stuff, I don’t do readings, I don’t do ghost hunts, or any of the usual paranormnal BS, and I find your insinuations in this article highly insulting. As usual, the skeptics don’t bother checking their facts, instead say anything to make the offending information just away! Bullying is how they keep honest, but fearful people from seeking the truth on these matters.

    I can understand how disturbinig it would be to your world view, and your precious science religion to have something like my boxes turn out to be true. I know something talks that shouldn’t be there, I can not say with certainty what it is, or who it is, unfortunately, it can’t be proven to the skeptics because “there is no evididence”, or rather they close their eyes and ears and claim there is no evidence.

    Moon just happens to be the first one to take the boxes “out in the field” as it were for testing. His experiences and claims are his own, although I have been present with Moon and did hear a voice come through “Edison here”, but of course the skeptic bozo will claim we just halucinated that! Any real voices people hear have to be wishful thinking as well, as the skeptics know there’s nothing out there to speak. It’s the only rational explanation, as if denying the facts is rational.

    More facts; the box is one radio tuner being swept electronically across it’s tuning range, the sweep can be linear, random, or even done by hand. The linear sweep is via a triangle wave, up then down the tuning range, contrary to the “facts” in the article. The purpose of sweeping a radio is to provide a source of bits of human speech, music and noise that the entites use as a “raw” material to form voices out of. It is the same concept as EVPmaker, mentioned earlier. Whatever anyone does, don’t check the facts yourself, let these skeptic bullies do all your thinking for you. Do check too many facts though, you may find much of what you treasure in sicence to be misleading, or false.

    BTW, there are variations made by others, such as mutliple tuners, something I don’t support, and don’t see a need for.

    Here’s another fact the skeptics won’t tell you, you can use a set of allophones, which are the very basic sounds of speech, run them through the program EVPmaker, and the entities will create meaningful messages from this raw material, not just random
    “sounds like words”, but real phrases. See, it’s not just the boxes the skeptic wants to get rid of, it’s all these troubling ideas.

    So now just go shaking your heads, and consider nothing else.

    So before you go taking the author of this article as genuine, check the facts! My only interest in this stuff is curiosty, I don’t sell boxes and don’t make any money. I am intrigued by the fact that something talks via varous methods of EVP, this something seems to know me, and often addresses me by name. Dedunk that, presumptuous skeptic!

    I get a voice that says “hello, this is Capernicus”, as it modulates the sounds from the FM band being scanned, I don’t give a crap if it’s the real guy or not, I know it shouldn’t be there, but is. Who am I, or any skeptic closed minded person to say who is talking?

    Frank Sumption

    • BillDarryl says:

      I can understand how disturbinig it would be to your world view, and your precious science religion to have something like my boxes turn out to be true.

      Dude! If this turned out to be true, it would be the most awesome scientific discovery EVER!

      If you honestly think that the scientific community would be so disturbed it would turn a deaf ear, you don’t get science AT ALL.

      • Mr Stu dislikes WOO! says:

        That’s just it Bill, he DOSEN’T understand science and/or skepticism. Sitting in front of a sweeping radio and listening for “answers” and “words” that your brain is pre programed to hear is not “research”. It’s confirmation bias.

      • Frank Sumption says:

        That’s just it, you bogus science dorks say that, but you won’t accept this stuff, just close your eyes and ears and claim there is no evidience!

      • Mr Stu dislikes WOO! says:

        Frank, don’t you have a comet to catch and some Kool-Aid to drink?

  17. Sharon says:

    I agree with Frank. Have any of u tried any of the many devices out there??? I was a skeptic myself at one time Then I tried it myself and there is communication comming through these boxes.I have way too many files for this to be just radio frag. If any one would like a session contact me by e mail ghostboxchick@yahoo.com I do this at no charge

  18. Lizzie says:

    Hello Frank,

    I am a big fan of yours, been on your board for a long time now and love the group. But I am also a Skeptic. I have never gone after you because I believe you think this is real and are above board honest. I deeply respect that! So I hope you don’t take anything I say with the tone of disrespect.

    I would like to know how can a constantly scanning radio, picking up bits and pieces of transmissions from any public band be viewed as transmissions from the dead, or any other source?

    The next question has to do with Mr. Moon. (I can’t remember his real name right now) Why would you continue to have your name associated with such a charlatan? He is blatantly ripping off the public, in your name and with your product. Why don’t you make him stop or return you “Box?”

    I would also like to know if you ever looked up or researched the idea of Apophenia or Pareidolia, and what are your thoughts on that subject in regard to your boxes?

    Thanks for your time :-)

    • Frank Sumption says:

      It’s not “picking up” the dead, presummably. As I understand it’s operation “they” use the existing bits of speech, mucis and noise to remodulate inot their own voices. Of course, that remains a guess as to how it works.

      As for Moon– i don’t give with strings attached. Besides, there are times when I can hear what he’s hearing.

      Frank

  19. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhh!

    Why? Why? Why are we even bothering with these devices? They are a prime example of bunk. I hate these things with a passion.

  20. Paul T. says:

    Here’s what all of this boils down to, Frank you have invented a device which generates a random noise using broadcast signals as a source. You said in an updated set of schematics and specifications dated January 18, 2007 “It’s my belief that it is the randomness that allow spirits and other entities to get their voices, and signals across dimensions. This principal applies to the use of white noise as well.” I think there’s very little doubt to anyone here that you firmly believe this device has the capability of producing voices from the afterlife.

    But the reality it is audio randomness that plays into the sensory perception of pareidolia, which is the mind’s capability to take randomness or chaos and turn it into order. It is a perception we use every day visual examples are the Man in the Moon, the face on Mars, and of course the Virgin Mary on grilled cheese. It is chaos turned into order, the same examples apply for audio as well. Coupled with a belief in the paranormal, it would be easy for anyone to pick up bits and pieces of audio coming from the box. And turn them into answers from beyond. And when questions are asked out loud, this only heightens the expectation for an answer. But then it could be said that anyone even using the box has an expectation for an answer.

    This is an example of the everyday ghost box user, when it comes to the subject of Chris Moon this is something entirely different. He claims to be one of the few who can do translations the oracle of the Frank’s Box if you will, something I find very convenient. Taking money for his alleged services, this makes him nothing more than a grief vulture. Then using Thomas Edison’s name to give credibility to his Telephone to the Dead this just makes him disrespectful.

    I’m very sorry if you feel put out upon by the skeptical community, until recently except for a few of us we have remained pretty quiet on the subject. This will soon change!! If you or Chris Moon have on disputable evidence that your invention is anything beyond the sensory trait of pareidolia and that you are communicating with spirits or entities. I would highly recommend that you present your evidence. I do understand that you are not profiting from your invention however you did open the Pandora’s box.

    • Sharon says:

      I am a fairly new researcher but I have to say I feel I do Have alot of evidence files.The radio I use sweeps the am band I have so many cursing files (with the “f”word) as well as other 4 letter words that you would just not hear on radio. How is that pareidolia? I got a file a couple weeks ago that says “dont call the F%$#ing grave”I also save all my raw audio so u can tell these files were not cut and pasted. I dont charge for my service I feel its wrong to make money off of grieving people. Im trying to help those who are in need of some closure. Im not out to scam anyone and I do state there are no guarantees. I know im communicating with something and I have to say its quite amazing.

    • Kristin says:

      QUOTE: “I’m very sorry if you feel put out upon by the skeptical community, until recently except for a few of us we have remained pretty quiet on the subject…. however you did open the Pandora’s box.”

      Below is a list of scientists who were reviled for their crack-pottery, only to be later proven correct. Today’s science texts are dishonest to the extent that they hide the huge mistakes made by the scientific community. They rarely discuss the acts of intellectual suppression directed at the following researchers by colleague. And… after wide reading, I’ve never encountered any similar list. This is very telling.

      “When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.” – Jonathan Swift

      THE LIST: scroll down

      To add: Gilbert Ling, John C. Lilly

      * Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
      * Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
      * Baird, John L. (television camera)
      * Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
      * Bardeen & Brattain (transistor)
      * Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
      * Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
      * Crick & Watson (DNA)
      * Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
      * Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
      * Galvani (bioelectricity)
      * Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
      * Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
      * Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
      * Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
      * Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
      * Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
      * Goethe (Land color theory)
      * Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
      * Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
      * Lister, J (sterilizing)
      * T Maiman (Laser)

      “Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as ‘conceptual necessities,’ etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors.” – Einstein

      * Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
      * Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
      * Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
      * McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, “jumping genes”, transposons)
      * Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
      * Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
      * Ohm, George S. (Ohm’s Law)
      * Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
      * Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
      * Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
      * Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
      * Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
      * Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, “Schumann” resonance)
      * Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
      * J H van’t Hoff (molecules are 3D)
      * Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
      * Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
      * Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
      * Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
      * Zweig, George (quark theory)

      “Men show their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable.” -J. W. Goethe

      RIDICULED DISCOVERERS,
      VINDICATED MAVERICKS
      2002 William Beaty

      THE LIST: scroll down

      Weird science versus revolutionary science
      While it’s true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without investigation. If we do, then we’ll certainly take our place among the ranks of scoffers who dismissed (or even accidentally helped suppress) a large number of major scientific discoveries throughout history. Beware, for many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents today only appear sane and acceptable because we have such powerful hindsight. These same advancements were seen as obviously a bunch of disgusting lunatic garbage during the years they were first discovered.

      In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It’s a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain “diamonds” of great value. This makes the judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were *always* bogus, then we’d have good reason to reject them without thought. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions. Sometimes the “obvious craziness” turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor’s clothing, sometimes the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent, and only the lone voice of the “fringe” scientist is telling the truth.

      Below is a list of scientists who were reviled for their crackpottery, only to be later proven correct. Todays science texts are dishonest to the extent that they hide the huge mistakes made by the scientific community. They rarely discuss the acts of intellectual suppression directed at the following researchers by colleague. And… after wide reading, I’ve never encountered any similar list.[1] This is very telling.

      “When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.” – Jonathan Swift

      THE LIST: scroll down

      To add: Gilbert Ling, John C. Lilly

      * Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
      * Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
      * Baird, John L. (television camera)
      * Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
      * Bardeen & Brattain (transistor)
      * Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
      * Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
      * Crick & Watson (DNA)
      * Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
      * Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
      * Galvani (bioelectricity)
      * Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
      * Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
      * Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
      * Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
      * Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
      * Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
      * Goethe (Land color theory)
      * Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
      * Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
      * Lister, J (sterilizing)
      * T Maiman (Laser)

      “Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as ‘conceptual necessities,’ etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors.” – Einstein

      * Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
      * Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
      * Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
      * McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, “jumping genes”, transposons)
      * Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
      * Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
      * Ohm, George S. (Ohm’s Law)
      * Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
      * Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
      * Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
      * Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
      * Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
      * Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, “Schumann” resonance)
      * Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
      * J H van’t Hoff (molecules are 3D)
      * Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
      * Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
      * Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
      * Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
      * Zweig, George (quark theory)

      “Men show their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable.” -J. W. Goethe

      http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm

      • TonyaK says:

        Just because people have disagreed with this long list of people in the past does not mean that Frank Sumption’s claims are accurate or scientifically based. Your post made your actual point difficult to follow, but I am assuming that this is what you were proposing.

      • Paul T. says:

        What the hell was that!! That was one of the longest posts I’ve ever seen that said absolutely nothing. Can’t the paranormal community do any better than this?

      • BillDarryl says:

        (I like the random quotes that pop up here and again.)

        Kristin, that list of achievers didn’t whine, “well, you think I’m crazy, but one day technology will catch up and prove me right!”

        They started on the hard work of collecting data, building hypotheses, testing, affirming or chucking hypotheses, collect more data, rinse, repeat. They built up a storehouse of evidence to back their claim.

        To be taken seriously (and to be compared to legitimate achievers in science), the paranormal community needs to do the same. Problem is, they throw up their hands at step one, and say, well, the spirit world isn’t subject to physical world constraints and measurements, so there’s no data collection to be had (which is what you do in your other post on this page). And they then expect to be furthered on the path to legitimacy?

        Until the makers of paranormal claims do the hard work and build their body of evidence, please stop comparing them to scientists who did. It’s an awful analogy that disrespects the accomplishments of those achievers.

    • Frank Sumption says:

      Hardly! First of all, you have absoluytely no understanding of electronics, so trying to explain how it works is futile!

      But–The radio is a voltage tunable receiver, an electronic circuit delvelops the tuning voltage. The tuning voltage can be random, linear-or–even done by hand. The result is as the radio is tuned across it’s tuning range, the entities use the bits of speech.musicn and noise to form voices. It does work! And How DARE You Try To Take All thre magic Out Of People’s Lives Like You Have Done To Yours!? As if the world is so great with all this alledged science. Science gives toxic waste dumps, poison chemicals-absolutely no cures for any desease!–fake medical systems that want only your mopney–Science is the bunk–the true rip off the world’s population, and you have the gall to tell me what to believe- you fake, closed minded little twit.

      • Mr Stu dislikes WOO! says:

        “Science gives toxic waste dumps, poison chemicals-absolutely no cures for any desease!–fake medical systems that want only your mopney–Science is the bunk–the true rip off the world’s population”

        Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Mr. Frank Sumption! The paranormal’s version of Dale Gribble!

      • Paul T. says:

        “Hardly! First of all, you have absoluytely no understanding of electronics, so trying to explain how it works is futile!” I’m an engineer Frank, I would love to hear your explanation I have read all of your schematics and specifications. But I would love to hear from you go ahead give it a try!!

  21. Tracy says:

    I have to say that i was once a skeptic as well… I have since put much time and effort into this research. I have alot of respect for Mr. Sumption because he is truly about the research and does not take a dime for his boxes. He donates alot of his own time and is always trying new things to advance the communication.

    As far as it being paradolia… I have been with a group of people doing a session and we all hear the same messages coming through. How is that possible?? We record everything we do and when you ask a question and get a relevent answer whether it be correct or not, is just amazing. Spirits lie all the time so you can never be 100% sure if they are telling the truth or who you are speaking to is actually that person. Same as using a Ouija board. Just a much different device.

    I understand the skeptism. I have been there but i believe if you are a closed minded person and not open up to the possibity, you will never truly understand it. So, just coming on here bad mouthing something you really don’t know anything about is just not being educated on the subject. Just my opinion…

    • Denver says:

      You ask ‘how is that possible’. It is possible because once someone tells the other person what they hear, the other people are then primed to hear it too. It’s like pointing to a cloud and asking what someone sees. If they don’t know, you say ‘I see a dragon’, and then they say ‘oh yeah!’.

      You also probably ignore the answers that are wrong. How do you explain wrong, missing, or gibberish answers? If you get one answer that seems right, and 99 that seem wrong, was did that tell you? Can you objectively examine your results and then say ‘maybe this technology really doesn’t work’? Or do you have to make another excuse: ‘the spirits are lying, or stuborn’. Do you ask a lot of ‘yes/no’ questions? (Because in english, the word ‘yes’ has a strong sibilant, and so can always be heard in white noise fairly easily). Do you ask hard questions needing specific answers, or vague questions with many possible answers (and so, allowing many ‘sounds like’ words to match).

      Skeptics are happy to develop and refine tests, and to respect their results. It is the people who avoid testing of their claims (often by claiming testing is impossible) that you should be worrying about.

  22. Denver says:

    If there ever was a perfect example of confirmation bias, this is it. While anything that resembles a word or a phrase is counted as an evp, anything that doesn’t is either ignored (but not counted as a ‘fail’), or sonically tortured with layers of audio processing (a phased called ‘cleanup’) to get it back into the realm of ‘sounds like!’.

    And with all the successes being reported, simple tests are shunned, such as presenting an evp to various people, not giving them any information about the sound or what it may sound like, and privately collecting their comments as to the interpretation. The very few times I’ve seen this test done (even on evps that were claimed to be ‘obvious and clear’), everywhere gave a different interpretation.

    The very telling outcome is that either further testing is discouraged (and those who suggest it are stoned as cycnics), or the results are explained away as the sound somehow being meant for certain people, and it’s not important what other people might hear.

    And of course, this is how a meme struggles to survive: either defend itself with good testing, or come up with reasons why good testing cannot be done.

    telling them what is supposed to be on the When an evp

  23. Gawd, I love the internet.

  24. Tracy says:

    HUH????

  25. Tracy says:

    i understand your point of view but we don’t ask alot of yes and not questions because they are too easily explained away as white noise or radio fragments. i don’t make excuses that spirits lie to get an answer. They do, but if i ask what kind of food they ate and i get pizza confirmed on a recording how that not be some sort of validation??

    I don’t think that the skeptics will become believers and vice versa. Unfortunately i think everyone will agree to disagree on this subject no matter what the debate. But an open mind is much better than a closed one…all around.

    • Denver says:

      Asking what kind of food they eat is opened ended, as any answer they give, you are already primed to hear a word that sounds like some kind of food. A specific test would only allow one answer, one result, to be right: not a subjective interpretation of many words and many possible answers. For example, have an uninterested party (not a friend, a believer, or an cycnic) write a random word on a piece of paper, and put it in a box, where no one else sees it. You then ask the entity what word is on the paper. After many tests (and possibly fine tuning of the test), the audio is interpreted by another group of individuals not involved in the recording phase, and also not informed what they are trying to hear, or what kind of test is underway. If the entity continues to give the right answer, then the theory that something paranormal is occurring is showing good evidence. If the entity continues to get it wrong, then the theory is losing water, and should be changed or abandoned.

      Yes, skeptics can become believers, if the claims can be backed up with objective testing. But, believers avoid these tests, as they do not want to lose their beliefs (again, with excuses that testing is too hard, or they have nothing to prove, or it’s not testable, etc). That is not a slam or insult to believers: that is just how people are.

  26. Sharon says:

    I cohost a radio show every sunday on shadow talk radio from 6-7. This weeks topic is all about evidence files. There is a live chat room and a call in number. I would love to hear from the skeptics.Heres the link.
    http://shadowtalkradio.com/

  27. Tracy says:

    I am going to try your test and see what happens. It is a good experiment and i am always up to the challenge. I won’t say it will work or not because i do not know the outcome. I like to believe it will work but i will test it and if it does work i will be happy to share it with all.. audio included.

    Thanks Denver for being honest with your posts. I admire that as well.

  28. I really REALLY love the internet, lol.

  29. Glenn says:

    contemporary culture fell into the rift back in 1953, when William Sloane wrote the sci-fi book “Edge of Running Water,”

    The “Edge” story went on to be loosely adapted for a 1947 thriller starring Boris Karloff, “The Devil Commands.”

    I haven’t looked any further than this … yet but something must be wrong as a book published 6 yrs AFTER the movie could not be loosely adapted … UNLESS there was a TIME MACHINE!!! Woo HOO

    Now I have to go and check those facts.

  30. Mark Edward says:

    Looks like we hit a nerve. Good. Let’s have at it!

    Spirits lie? What kind of nonsense is that? Why would they lie? What possible gain would a dead entity get by lying, even if they could communicate?

    Absurd. They are dead!

    Bad mouthing? I’m certainly not doing that. I’m open for a test. Agree to disagree?

    F that! Put your money where your mouth (or psycho-phone) is.

    Frank, Sharon or whoever:

    I ask you to give me particular and specific spirit communication from a very specific spirit I have in mind RIGHT NOW who will have very specific information for me having to do with my family background. What are you picking up RIGHT NOW?

    If I get the tiniest bit of real confirmation and not some random cold reading hit from some errant radio wave from who knows where in the next vfew hours from you, I will change my tune.

    I’m as open as I can possibly be! If what you have is genuine, I will advocate for you. I have spent my entire life looking for you.

    No radio show comments. No more blogs. No haggling. No arguement. No bullshit.

    Let’s have it.

    It’s now Tuesday, 12:45 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. I’m focused on that spirit.

    I’m waiting.

  31. Glenn says:

    DANG!!!
    “Edge of Running Water” was published in 1939 and the movie “The Devil Commands” was released in 1941 (according to Amazon and IMDB respectively)
    Bummer that no Time machine out there … but one can always hope that some charlatan will come up with one so we can have more fun reading Skepticblog.org

    • Sharon says:

      so like your asking me to read your mind? sorry I dont do that. I offered you a free session thats what I do, but I do need some particulars the loved one you want me to contact your name and any questions you may have.I never claimed to be a physic I cant pull a spirit out of a hat. I have nothing to hide. I do this for people every day I have the proof tell me where to send it .Let me do a session for you, Join in on our evidence show. what more do you want ?seems to me your the one whos running from it. Hey maybe your just scared.You obviously know nothing about box research.

  32. Tracy says:

    I don’t understand why all the attacking is going on.. Mark.. Great so you wrote an article.. good for you.. I have nothing to hide and/or nothing to gain from this disagreement. And yes, spirits lie all the time. I guess you do not know much about paranormal investigating to make a comment like that. I would be happy to do a reading for anyone, but to demand a reading right now out of thin air to contact who exactly? It doesn’t work that way. Maybe you should do your homework on how box research really works. That could be the topic of your next article. I won’t waste my time being harrassed for what i believe in either. And i know how this will go.. You will say we are scared to put my money where my mouth is , that is what you said, correct? Not afraid of anything and would do a session for anyone who asked but you didn’t.You demanded. Our audio files speak for themselves. I will send them to anyone who wants to listen.

  33. Mark Edward says:

    Excuse, excuse, excuses.
    This is not attacking for the sake of attacking. There are people out there doing real damage to other peoples’ lives. Don’t you get that? As to calling into question my “investigating ” credentials. Give me a break. I have spent over 37 years in and out of both sides of the paranormal investigation scene. How many years have you put in? Do you think just because I’m now here at a skeptical blog site that I have totally made my mind up once and for all? Stop equivocating and come up with the goods. Get on with it!

    Yes, I’m demanding! What else is going on in your life right now that could possilbly be more importantt than answering my challenge with something concrete? Are you on your way to the gym or something?

    Also, I’m very interested in your explanation as to why spirits lie. That’s got to be one of most ridiculous dodges I’ve ever heard. Did you pick that one up from Madame Blavatsky or something? I mean seriously, what have they got to lose? They are DEAD to this world anyway. Explan please. I can’t wait to hear that one. Seems to me that telling the truth would lead to a better understanding on both sides. Isn’t that logically the reason why they would respond to anyone here on the earthly plane in the first place? Why else would they bother? Those pesky spirits are just so mischevious aren’t they? Right. How convienient. That line of reasoning doesn’t make any sense at all. Which then begs the next question; If they are lying, what good is dealing with them anyway? Do you make it a habit to choose to deal with dishonest people on this earthly plane? Why put your faith in a liar on the other side?

    Not afraid huh? Sounds like you are terrified to me. You have absolutely nothing to offer and you know it. Otherwise, switch on the box. I’m not interested in your “files.” Send me something NOW. I’m still waiting. It’s now Tuesday 1:55 p.m. Do the spirits have something better to do? Seems to me they would like to clear up this little debate once and for all. It’s easy. Just send me one or two phrases that relate to the spirit of the person I have been thinking about. Can you do it or not? You have until 5:00 p.m.

    FINAL OFFER: If I get something here in writing that even vaguely approaches anything remotely connected to that entity, we will have made history and you have my word of honour that I will QUIT THIS BLOG. How’s that for a testimonial for your files?

    • Kristin says:

      Quote: “Also, I’m very interested in your explanation as to why spirits lie. That’s got to be one of most ridiculous dodges I’ve ever heard.”

      And how do you know that they don’t?

      • Mr Stu dislikes WOO! says:

        How do You know that they do?

      • Kristin says:

        I don’t. But I never claimed to know. It was Mr. Edward who stated quite clearly that saying they lie was the ‘most ridiculous dodges he’s ever heard.” So he must know something definitively that I don’t.

      • TonyaK says:

        First, you must provide some kind of evidence that even remotely suggests that spirits EXIST in the first place. Then we can talk all you want about whether they are truthful in their communication efforts…

      • Kristin says:

        That would be wonderful, wouldn’t it! But how does one prove something from the esoteric? This is my point. It is like trying to prove a negative – you can’t!

        How do I attempt to prove something of a spiritual nature with physical, earthly items. If we could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that ghosts exist, then we could also prove that God exists.

        When you consider all the things in the world that we state as fact; for example, the distance from the Sun to Earth – who has made the trip? How do we not know there isn’t a distortion that takes place in space that will actually alter our measurements of distance. We don’t and we can’t know the truth of this – we can only speculate.

        Because so many people have seen ghosts and pictures have been taken in which ghosts appear and so many people are now using ghost boxes with clear and relevant communication there is much ‘evidence’ (pseudo or not) out there to decipher. I believe personally that participation is the best way to prove it – one person at a time.

        Do you believe that every person who has seen a ghost is an unreliable source? The sheer numbers alone favor the idea that at least something is going on. And to the contrary what some skeptics will say about these people, most are sound, reliable individuals. And more often than not these people really don’t want this experience because it makes them feel abnormal and even scared.

        I know this is a skeptics blog but keep in mind that being skeptical does not mean you can’t believe in such possibilities – what it means is you don’t know if such things are true or not. A true skeptic is someone who has no opinion about such things – but is open to the possibilities. If a person does not believe photographs, witnesses, jumps in electro-magnetic detection devices, radio communication, temperature changes when a ghost is seen (or recordings heard) by someone, then that person is not a skeptic but a non-believer. A non-believer, no matter what one does, will never believe simply because they truly are not open to the slightest realm of possibility.

        But that is my humble opinion.

      • TonyaK says:

        To my knowledge, there are no verified photographs of ghosts. There is no known way to measure “ghosts” because they are not a proven, quantifiable, qualifiable “thing.” The experiences you mention may very well be strange events without a readily available explanation, but that does not mean that one should immediately jump to the paranormal as an explanation. That is the easy way out. Human senses are not infallible. Eyewitness testimony is problematic.

        This may be a blog intended for skeptics, but I have arrived at my skepticism not through armchair philosophizing but through hard work and research of my own. I stand by my statement that there is no reliable valid evidence that supports the existence of ghosts. So how can you purport to be communicating with spirits of the dead? I don’t get the connection there.

      • Kenny Biddle says:

        “Because so many people have seen ghosts and pictures have been taken in which ghosts appear and so many people are now using ghost boxes with clear and relevant communication there is much ‘evidence’ (pseudo or not) out there to decipher.”

        These three items are not evidence, at the most they can only be considered as “data” to study. Evidence proves something, data adds up to evidence. Eyewitness accounts can not be taken as truth, too many people misinterperet what they experience due to fear, lack of understanding or blind faith. In like fashion, there are large groups of people who believe a god created all you know, while another groups says we’re a product of millions of years of evolutionary progress…while yet another large group believes ETs had a hand in our creation. The data so far favors the evolution theory., but we can’t say it’s evidence since none of us were around to witness the events.

        “Clear and Reevant” communication with these boxes is not a fact, that is your opinion on the matter. I have listened to dozens of these recordings, and have not heard anything that can be considered “Clear” or “Relevant”. Random snipits of white noise can easily be mistaken for words and/or phrases depending on what the listener is waiting for. Your upbringing, lifestyle, interests and even recent conversations can effect how your brain may interpret chaotic noises coming from the speakers. The recordings you have are data, not evidence of paranormal activity. A test as described by Denver above would be the first step in advancing the idea, the theory that a modified radio can receive messages from the other side of life. However, i must say that the way this box is described to operate – “The purpose of sweeping a radio is to provide a source of bits of human speech, music and noise that the entites use as a “raw” material to form voices out of.” – is based on a hope. Where do the origin of ghosts needing bit of human speech, music and noise to form voices come from? Who thought up this theory? There are plenty of accounts where people have heard voices, some calling their name, or others having full conversations…without the use of “human speech, music and noise”. I would like to understand where this concept, which seems to be the basis for the functioning of the box, came from.

        As for photographs, this is perhaps the worse data that can be submitted anymore. Most of todays ghostly photographs are a product of operator error and complete misunderstanding on how to use the device. Camera straps, dust particles in the air, long exposure, reflections, bugs, pollen, moisture, fishing line, over-enhanced images, strands of hair, snow, lens flare, dust on the lens, light painting (look it up), and the almighty Photoshop make up 99.9% of of the remaining ghost photos. Other than that, we have people claiming to be experts in the paranormal who have no idea what they’re looking at when deciding if a photo contains an entity. unfortunately, bad and misguided information about “what to look for” has circulated, and then recirculated over and over again, that the majority of ghost hunters have become nothing more than Copy Machines.

        I implore you, allow the boxes in questions to be tested. Allow the tests to be performed, adjusted as needed (and not manipulated) and performed again. Allow the test parameters, conditions,those involved (as well as their qualifications), materials, schematics, procedures and results to be posted for all to review and discuss. Blind faith is not science, and don’t drink the purple coolade.

  34. Kristin says:

    “What you believe someone else can or can’t do hasn’t got beans with the doing. Or lack of doing. Just go back through your history books and you’ll discover that just about everything you take for granted today in your daily lives was absolutely impossible not so many years ago.” – Martin Caidin

    The common mantra of hard nosed skeptics is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    “If my friend told me that on the way here he was delayed because his car got a flat tire, then I would believe it because it is an ordinary claim. However, if he claimed that on his way here he was temporarily abducted by aliens in a UFO, then I would not believe his claim because it is extraordinary in nature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    Now it would help if the skeptics who proclaim this argument specify what they would accept as extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, arbitrarily stating this argument gives one an out no matter what evidence is shown. While it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of evidence for more extraordinary claims, there are nevertheless difficulties to keep in mind.

    1) First, although this rule is good as a general guideline, the fact that 3 possible alternatives exist make this rule fallible.

    a) It is possible for something to exist without leaving behind collectible evidence as a souvenir to us. For example, planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light move around without leaving “hard evidence” yet they exist. Therefore, extraordinary phenomena can easily exist without leaving behind extraordinary evidence.

    b) It is possible for something to exist yet the evidence for it hasn’t been found or understood yet, which is the case for almost every discovery in history from fire and wheels to gunpowder and gravity, to planets, atoms and electromagnetism.

    c) It is possible that the evidence is already there but that it’s subject to interpretation, making it controversial. This is true for instance, of the recordings from the ghost boxes. So even when something leaves a recorded message, a trail, residue or mark, they are subject to interpretation anyway.

    Of course, skeptics have argued that all these things are possible but not probable, hence the requirement for extraordinary evidence. However, in order to really know all that is probable and improbable in the universe and reality, it would require that one have complete knowledge of every dimension and reality that exists in the universe and beyond. No one, neither skeptic nor believer, has that kind of knowledge, at least not consciously. Therefore, it would be more accurate to state that:

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to convince skeptics, but not necessarily to exist in objective reality.”

    However, die hard skeptics will not consider anecdotal evidence to be valid evidence regardless of the amount. To them, credible evidence has to be measurable in some conventional way and reproduced at our beck and call (e.g. Mike Edward’s above demand to contact his relative about a particular family issue RIGHT NOW! :-). The problem with this is that what we can measure is limited to our level of technology. I for one would love it if we could have instant one-one land-line telephone type conversation with dead people (or aliens or whoever) but we don’t have that technology right now. For instance, before we had the technology to measure seismic-activity in the Earth’s crust, they still existed even though they couldn’t yet be measured. Furthermore, since we can’t see radio waves, electromagnetism, air, gravity, magnetic force, etc. but they exist anyway, it is logical to assume that there are other things that could exist but aren’t yet measurable. Our technology may not be up to the level to measure other things that could be there. Or it may be that our technology can only detect things of the physical plane and not the spiritual plane.

    Looking for physical evidence of something spiritual is like looking for evidence in the ocean for the existence of Mars rather than looking for it in space.

    2) Second, “There is no hard evidence to support any paranormal phenomena.”

    This is a vague argument because it doesn’t define what constitutes “hard evidence.” If by hard evidence they mean something solid and tangible, then it would not be possible to obtain this from certain things like ghosts, spirits, or ETs since they are intangible in nature and possibly involve other dimensions we don’t fully understand yet. By this standard, we have no tangible evidence for stars, galaxies, black holes, or nebulae that are light years away either, although we can observe them.

    If by hard evidence they mean things that we can test and measure with experiments, then this would be difficult to do with ghosts since they are out of our control, but this has already been done and replicated for psychic phenomena like telepathy and telekinesis. They have replicated Ganzfeld and Autoganzfeld with controlled telepathy experiments, the 20 year consistency of the Princeton Random Number Generator PK experiments, the controlled tests on psychics such as Uri Geller that he succeeded in, the recent tests on mediums by Dr. Gary Schwartz, and others. Skeptics need to clearly define what they want as hard evidence, rather than being vague about it and then raising the bar when anything is presented.

    (Credit to Winston Wu of Freeinquiry.com from whom I liberally poached from his writing to help get my point across.)
    Kristin

    “Let the mind be enlarged… to the grandeur of the mysteries, and not the mysteries contracted to the narrowness of the mind” – Francis Bacon

    • BillDarryl says:

      If I understand your argument, physical evidence standards should not apply to things of the spiritual realm? That seems to be the crux of your post.

      To which I say, hogwash. If an entity can be seen, light waves are bouncing off of it. We understand light. If an entity can be heard, it’s producing sound waves. We get sound. If an entity gives off heat or some other radiation, we can measure that. If these “spiritual” things are breaking into the physical world, we can measure those effects. Period.

      You cite a host of scientific discoveries to illustrate your point, but all were discovered prescisely by that method – applying what we already knew to observations of phenomena. If you’re saying this new class of phenomena is exempt from this method, you’re changing the game, and it’s meaningless to compare it to those real discoveries.

      Ponder this… if you’re saying things are happening which you observe but no one else can possibly verify by any known standards, well… what makes you different from a crazy person?

      • Kristin says:

        QUOTE: “If I understand your argument, physical evidence standards should not apply to things of the spiritual realm? That seems to be the crux of your post.”

        No.. it is just harder to study in a controlled environment in the ‘normal’ scientific way. Science requires experiments to have controls and then be replicated not once but several times before it even begins to consider the possibility of positive results.

        The problem with trying this approach within the spiritual realm and is we have no control over half the control subject… (e.g., spirit show up on time when called, weather, electrical, magnetic and solar forces are all the same for each attempt, frame of mind of researcher, etc.) And just because we call them (spirit) does not mean they will show up. They are not dogs.. but I digress..

        So two exact same sessions are not likely to happen. Each box session is unique in and of itself. Although we have no trouble communicating and posting the recording for all to hear and judge.. it is still highly susceptible to human interpretation.

        I am not saying it can’t be done, but science needs to expand it’s idea of how to test outside the realm of physical, material and controllable subjects.

        And my lists were to just prove a point that many inventors, great thinkers and outside-the-box scientists who are now given credit were in their day called crazy or worse. Pandora’s Box indeed :-)

        I am curious though.. how many of the skeptic posters here have actually tried it themselves? It’s okay if you haven’t.. but you can’t then claim superior knowledge on the subject. That would just as inappropriate as someone falsifies communication.

      • tmac57 says:

        “The problem with trying this approach within the spiritual realm and is we have no control over half the control subject… (e.g., spirit show up on time when called, weather, electrical, magnetic and solar forces are all the same for each attempt, frame of mind of researcher, etc.) And just because we call them (spirit) does not mean they will show up. ”
        This is what we skeptics call the ‘special pleading fallacy’, and unless you can do a randomized controlled repeatable trial to validate EVP, don’t expect anyone in the skeptic community to believe your claims.

  35. Sharon says:

    Im going to explain how this all works.I turn my box on and ask for a spirit tech. I talk to certain ones every day ,some even have there own catch phrases. Then i ask the spirit tech if its possible to pull someone through.Somtimes they will tell you they cant today or you may just hear cant help. Sometimes you hear sure no problem. Then I ask my spirit tech to let me know when the entity is there.During this you may pick up a bored entity that wants to chat so they may say there the person your looking for. Normally i have the person im doing the reading for ask a question that only the spirit and the client will know the answer. I have gotten answers for people and they were amazed and even joined the board I belong to and started doing research themselves. Now not every session is productive Why you might ask? well I dont know this is still in the research stage, and thats what is is research and I am very proud to be a part of it and I am happy to offer a service to help grieving people.I think everyone is basing the box reseach on what Chris Moon does (charging numerouws amounts of money and no audio proof to back it up). he has made this type of communication look like a scam. I have a full time job I do this on the little bit of free time i do have I also will send the client the raw audio.I dont know what else to offer you this is the best i can do

    • BillDarryl says:

      You mention ongoing “research” several times in this post. Can you give details?

      • Sharon says:

        Hi Bill yes this is an ongoing research were always trying new
        boxes radios evpmakers working with different tones and such.I belong to a research board of about 130 people and we share our files along with defferent ideas. some days the communication is awesome and other days its not. Some
        days i can turn my box on and hear a “Hey Sharon whats up” and other days nothing. Were always working on different ideas to get better communication and weve come along way

  36. Mark Edward says:

    Okay. Turn your box on. Tell your “tech” that Mark Edward would sincerely like to reach someone with the initials MW. That’s all the hint they should need since that’s standard medium-speak here on Earth. Tell the tech that Mark will settle for a bored entity if that’s the best they can do before 5:00 p.m. today. If they are bored enough, they should be able to plumb the shallow depths of my mortal mind and easily pluck some bit of cogent info from it, hand the phone over to MW and send back a message from same. Fair enough?

    Let’s have it.

    The clock is ticking: tick tick, tick.

  37. Sharon says:

    WHAT PART OF THIS IS NOT A MIND READING GAME ARE YOU NOT GETTING???? I explained to you how this works and I will be more then happy to do a session for you.But your asking me to do something I dont do. Again give me a name and some questions you would like answered I will email you the audio I get.And whats up with the clock ticking bs. I explained in an earler post I do have a full time job and I do this on my free time I am trying my best to be fair and I dont work on time limits My name is not chris moon and I dont make the same claims he does so lets keep this real give me the info and Ill send you what I get

  38. LOL

    The box medium needs detailed questions (the better to go cold read fishing with), and if the answers she brings back are wrong, well… the spirit must have lied!

    Aw geez, I love the internet. This is better than any TV show. You can’t pay for this kind of entertainment.

    Greed being a pandemic human failing, I fully understand the con artist who pretends at this nonsense, but those who really, truly believe it… ay-yi-yi… lol.

    • Sharon says:

      now your putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to be a medium You dont have any idea how the box works maybe you should reseach it before making judgement.If you knew anything at all about it you would understand what Mark wants me to do is just rediculous.you guys are talking about something you know absolutely nothing about!!!!

      • Baxter says:

        Gee Sharon, why don’t you tell us all what we don’t understand? I have used and experimented with several variations of the box and I see nothing wrong with what the skeptics are saying or asking of you. Could it be that maybe even YOU don’t believe deep inside that what you are doing is real? Do you just ignore all of the misses but get real excited at the hits? That’s the best way to fool yourself! Maybe you should google “Here Be Dragons” by Brian Dunning and get a real lesson or two…

      • Ah, but you don’t have any idea how it works either. Neither of us can know, because, of course, it doesn’t work.

  39. Mark Edward says:

    The spirits exist in the ether all the time according to the doctrine expsoused by mediums throughout history. They are not just hanging around waiting to hear from you or in your boxes. And if they are real and able to communicate and have access to other spirits in relation to my name and the initials I have already given you, it shoudn’t be too hard for someone (or something…)to come up with something immediately.

    If I were you give YOU a specific name,what would stop you from simply Googling that name and parcing together some reading based on that info? No way. This is not a mind reading stunt and I understand the limitations you seem to have honestly expressed here, but as others have stated and I must agree: “Extraordinary claims demend extraordinary proof.”

    Yes, tick tick, tick. Time shoudn’t be a problem for your spirit techs either. Everybody knows time and space don’t exist in the spirit world.
    But both do here on this plane and my deadline is stll 5:00 p.m. “Time limits?” You bet.

    But in lieu of anything not showing up by 5:00 on your box, this experiment is not just going out to you Sharon, so if you are at work, I encoursge you to pass my challenge on to any fellow box owners out there who may want to participate.

    Come on now. I’m not trying to be unfair. Pass this up the “chain of command” and let’s work together.

    The way I see it is plain and simple: Certain people are merely taking the opportunity to translate white noise and other unstable voice patterns into cold reading hype. Simple really. I’m surprsied I didn’t think of it myself.

  40. Baxter says:

    Hey! I HAVE used these devices and I have ALSO researched my ass off on EVP and our natural ability to make order from chaos. I have researched into how many of you don’t hear the SAME THING when you are NOT prompted ahead of time and I am astonished that you still think these things work well. As soon as you tell us all what they say, WELL! Then we CAN hear what it says but not before! When it is as clear as a real conversation or true radio broadcast, I might give it some credence but as of now, I remain in the realm of Occum’s Razor like any true intelligent being would.

    Don’t worry, I’m not giving up. My team and I are going to go through a large series of lab research to further discover the truth. It could go either way…

  41. Sharon says:

    now your just wasting my time ,so you do the test ill give you my name google it and you tell me things only my mother or father would know cmon now, this is a joke right. look I do get communicatiion i know it an so do the people ive helped out<once again I dont take any money so why o why would i waste my valuble time. I TRY TO HELP PEOPLE NOT HURT THEM I put an offer on the table you asked me to do a session and I said ok sure, but now you want me to read your mind. im done here for now ive got dinner to make and things to do but my offer still stands if you want a session just email me and ill be glad to ghostboxchick@yahoo.com

    • Baxter says:

      He’s not asking you to read his mind! He’s asking for info from the all-powerful box! Isn’t this what you claim to do? If the box can’t deliver on its promises, what are YOU doing? It doesn’t matter that you are doing it for free. Stealing money isn’t the only damage that gets done by fooling people this way even if you fool yourself in the process. I guess the only way you will wake up to reality is when the box tells you to…

  42. Sharon says:

    i didnt say the box could read minds I said I could try to pull a loved one through for you I have helped alot of people,how can you guys comment on something you know nothing about

  43. Sharon says:

    Ive offered audio files, ive offered to do a session and like i stated before I cohost a radio show your more then welcome to tune in on.this week is all about evidence files you should listen you might learn something.Im willing to put up the evidence you guys just dont want to hear it.so

  44. Paul T. says:

    I know everything about this box, technically, psychological and mythological. Based on the claim of what the box is capable of, Marks request falls well within the framework of its alleged capabilities.

    I also agree with Mark that it is time to put up or shut up! I propose that a protocol under controlled conditions be set up. And that someone step up who is qualified and apply for the JREF million-dollar challenge.

    • Denver says:

      Didn’t David Koenig already try to qualify for the JREF challenge with EVPs? I hear that didn’t work out too well for him.

      • Paul T. says:

        The difference is this is a unique claim, a device that can allegedly communicate in real time to departed souls. After protocol is agreed upon the testing should be pretty straightforward, and final.

  45. Susan G. says:

    I can’t believe this conversation! I love the internet too…why watch reality TV.

    Firstly – A good friend of mine (Kitty) reminded me of something my hero Asimov said.

    Unicorns – do they have wings or not? That is an illogical question, the real question should be, what proof do we have that unicorns exist?

    That is the problem with this Frank’s Box. What evidence is there that the dead can communicate with the living? What evidence is there that there is “life” after death? Until that question is answered, and I mean really answered this the whole idea of the dead (bored, lairs, loved ones ect…) trying to communicate with us is a moot point.

    I mean really think about it. Once you get into an argument with someone about how the box allows dead people to communicate, you have been drawn into the trap. You are now involved in the argument of winged vs non-winged unicorns.

    Secondly – there is none.

    Susan

  46. Sharon says:

    it seems like you guys are misinformed about what the box does, for one thing it doesnt read minds, well as far as I know anyway

    • Baxter says:

      You are really enjoying making this one statement that the box does not read minds. We get it! BUT, the box can communicate with those dead that know the answers to what Mark is asking. This is not mind reading. This is backing up your claims. Your move…

  47. Susan G. says:

    BTW Mark

    I am receiving communication for you, the box I’m using is my ice box. I put my ear up to the humming admitting from its coils (if it sounds sexy it is, trust me, it is terribly erotic laying on the floor, tape recorder in hand asking questions of my refrigerator)

    Anyway, I have received several messages for you from MW. She said that you were a good little boy, (recorded “good boy”) and something about a book (recorded “book”) Then she went off on a tangent about an elevator, maybe something about an “ouchie” Again I have the words (elevator and ouchie all recorded).

    So does this mean something to you, something personal and meaningful? When I say “she said” it is possible I have that wrong, the voice might be trying to fool me, I’m not sure cause you know sometimes they might be bored or liars or something else.

    But anyway I’m about 87% sure the message was meant for you…..must go now, another message coming through some warning about not eating so much red meat…now who is that for? Must ask more questions…

    Susan

  48. Sharon says:

    Again im tired of saying this I am willing to do a session for anyone of you I am a dedicated researcher. All you guys are doing is trying to make a mockery of something you have no knowledge of.

    • Susan G. says:

      With all due respect Sharon, what gives you the right to ridicule my belief in what my fridge tells me? Or the sound of water running in my shower? Or whatever random noise I think I can perceive inside or outside my perception?

      At some point you have to stand back and say what do you really know about this noise generator? You have stated that at the beginning you were skeptical, that’s easy to say, but why don’t you put your thinking cap back on and think this through.

      I want you to really understand where I’m coming from here…if the dead can really really communicate with us. For sure and truly, what would that mean for the living. If you really believe that you are in touch with the dead, how can you function. How can you sit in front of your computer and type, how do you work, eat, sleep ect… That is the most AMAZING discovery of all time. Nothing is more wonderful, not traveling to the moon, not saving a life, not giving birth, nothing! How can you not sit in front of that machine, tears pouring down your face, you have the key to everything in that box. Life as we know it would stop to function, why cheat death? Why improve health care? Why cry over tragic deaths, or any death?

      If this thing can communicate and if there is life after death, if you truly believe this, then I can not imagine anything more important than endless hours communicating. Why oh why are you posting here? You have all the answers to every question ever asked and can be asked. It would be so easy to prove, tests can be established, Mark’s was just one way, there are many others. And if you don’t care to “prove” it to us skeptics, because you feel we are “closed-minded” then use it for your own knowledge, you have the key, use it. You have nothing to prove to anyone if you truly believe.

      Susan G.

  49. tmac57 says:

    Looks like SkepticBlog is being ‘haunted’ by ‘true believers’. Oooooooooooooooh…..scary! Peached $1.89.

  50. Sharon says:

    oh and Mark hasnt given me a question or a name yet weve been doin this all day. Its getting old Mark has my email he contacted me earlier i really want to set something up.WEll i cant play this game anymore tonight I have to getup early for work. Ive been waiting for you guys all day to give me something to go on.

    • Marie says:

      What is it that you need to go on?? All that is being said is that spirits are not going to contact people via phone, radio or any other thing you claim..so why don’t you just give all of us “something to go on”??

  51. Marie says:

    Sharon, I doubt very seriously that a spirit is hovering around waiting for technology so that “we can communicate” with them..Has anyone heard from God on the phone lately?? Why in the heck would the spiritual realm need technology to commume with us mere mortals?? Okay so the dead are trying to communicate with us through radio waves?? Are you serious??? I laugh at you and by the way Mark Edwards touche and Baxter you are all over it..COOL and the elevator story by Susan..gee maybe a spirit will interrupt her and push the down button Oh what fun that would be.. or the up button HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    Sharon it is people like you that make the seriousness and the curiosity of all of this that we DON”T know mundane and common..

  52. Sharon: “I can’t read minds!”

    Others: “We know. Just prove your claim.”

    Sharon: “I can’t read minds!”

    Others: “Yes, we understand, You said your box connects the dead with the living, allows communications. Don’t tell us, show us.”

    Sharon: “I can’t read minds!”

    Others: “Yes, we GET that part, you can’t read minds. what can you do with this box? whatever it is, do it, you know, put up or shut up.”

    Sharon: “I can’t read minds!”

    Sharon: “I can’t read minds!”

    Sharon: “I can’t read minds!”

    LOL, ah, this is great stuff. You couldn’t write this stuff. It’s sort of played out though. Clearly Sharon is just gonna play games and make claims, and we’ve only got, what, a couple million parawoosters doing that all across the Great Wide Web.

    Just for grins, because I know she cannot and will not answer them, I’ll pose a few questions for Sharon:

    1. How do you know any voices you believe you hear come from the spirits of dead people, especially since the voices, presumed by you to be spirits, will lie to you?

    2. Have you played your recordings of these voices for completely uninitiated listeners unaware of what they’re supposed to hear to see what they do hear, whether it matches what you believe you hear, or whether they hear anything coherent at all?

    3. What would you accept as evidence or proof that you are wrong about what you believe you are hearing?

    Sharon: “I can’t read minds!”

    LOL

    As for me, I’d prefer to hear more about Susan G and her very hot icebox act……..

    • Susan G. says:

      I think I love you DA!

    • Paul T. says:

      I can’t read minds either!! You bring up a great point I have played allegedly class A EVP’s for colleagues with out an interpretation and they cannot make out what is being said or that it’s a human voice at all. I’ll let them hear it again with the translation and then they can usually pick it out. We got the same results when we built a quick ghost box in our office. Yes we are bored sometimes.

      • Mr Stu dislikes WOO! says:

        That’s cool Paul. The research group I belong to actually does this in our lecture series called “The “Science” of The Paranormal”. We do the same exact thing but with crowds of 50 plus people. It’s fun to watch the reaction of the audience when they start grasping the concept of pareidolia and apophenia. Having the audience participation really drives the point home!

      • Paul T. says:

        That’s awesome keep up the good work, I too enjoy watching the lightbulb come on over over their head when they realize what is going on with their own perceptions. Some support staff in our office come back and tell me stories from these dumb ghost hunter shows. The great thing is, instead of passively watching it they apply some critical thinking. And have figured out that the Roto-Rooter guys are not collecting evidence but collecting experiences. Which is not evidence! As one support staff member put it “one less thing to fear”

      • Sharon says:

        no its more like comon guys Ill do a session(ive been offering allllll day)and Mark saying im thinking of the initials mc who is it
        1 ok for one I have many files where I asked who am I speaking with and they replied dead people
        2 I work in a hair salon and I always bring my recorder and box with me, Ive played uncut audio and have done sessions for customers alot of used to be skeptics. A few months ago a customer of mine daughter passed away suddenly (she used to make fun of what I do) she came to me saying alright let me see if there’s anything to this.I I presented her case to the board of researchers I work with and we
        were able to produce audio of her daughter and it brought her much comfort. as far as te lyeing spirits go that why I have the person im doing the sesion for ask a question only the spirit would know the answer to or validation. Look I cant see what im talking to so I try to get as many evidance files as I can.so if the entity can give a nick name or the name of a pet or something I dont know the answer to
        I atleast feel ive made contact
        3 do a session with me and be open to it ill listen to what you have to say and what you think it is. I know I have communication what do I have to do to prove it to you

        3 either do a legitimate

      • Susan G. says:

        Sharon, personally I find it sick that you try to communicate with the daughter of one of your clients. But maybe that is just me? That is a funny kind of “comfort”, I noticed that you have not answered my statements.

        If the mother really believes that her daughter is speaking to her, again how can she continue to function. Why would you care if your hair looked nice, why do anything but ask endless question after question of the box. How does someone get up out of a chair, pay her bill, leave a tip and walk out the door at the end of her “session”? I am not understanding this at all.

        You are telling us that you have the most amazing invention every created, and you use it to communicate with the dear departed who just want to talk about their dog? What!

        Personally I would slap the “you-know” out of anyone that condensed my memories of my dead loved ones into simple statements about pets and nicknames. Come on!

        Try this experiment. Cut up a newspaper into just the single words. Put all the words into a bag and roll a couple dice to determine how many words to work with. Then pull out the random words and try to put them into a statement. I bet you will manage to find some kind of statement a good percentage of the time, if you don’t make sense of it then do what you do with the majority of your “box sessions” ignore the misses.

        Is this making any sense to you at all?

      • Sharon says:

        now where did i say they just want to talk about there dog what i said was i ask for the entity for the name of a pet or a nickname for validation you dont get this at all,Try your experiment??? oh i get i
        it your still in high school. look you know NOTHING about
        this. Oh and the client came to me asking for help Im not a hurst chaser, and I did help her Just because its not right for you doent mean its not right for everyone elese in the world

      • Sharon, please don’t accuse people of “still being in high school” whilst utilising poor grammar and english skills.

        It’s YOU’RE not YOUR and it’s a HEARSE not a HURST.

        Spiricom is a broken radio. Supporting delusions should be a crime.

  53. I love how the paranormal community band together to defend these bunk gadgets.

    The typical opening statement: I used to be skeptical too until………

    Seriously, why is this even being discussed? These devices perform a linear scan of carriers. People hear what they want to hear. The devices receive signals and have no ability to transmit. So who are you talking to?

    Let’s break this down.

    Someone uses a broken radio…oops, I mean, Spiricom, to speak with “the other side”. You ask a question and you get somewhat of a response. Now, let’s take a look at how much legwork these “spirits” require in order to make this response…even if it isn’t legible or remotely qualifies as a response.

    Firstly, the spirit would need to be able to “hear” the question. How do they do this if they do not possess the basic requirement of hearing the question? No ears. Ok, so let’s assume they have “spirit ears” and can hear you through these devices. How is the device transmitting the audio? There’s no ability to transmit, only to receive. Ok, so lets assume the spirit can just plain old HEAR the question.

    Lot’s of assumptions so far, but read on because there’s more to come.

    The spirit hears the question and then selects words from the airwaves to provide a response. Usually, from my experience, a response that doesn’t make sense or could translate to anything in several languages.

    So now let’s assume the spirit chose the words from the carriers or frequencies and has provided you with a response. The spirit would have had to…

    1. Go back in time to the day the programming schedule was agreed upon by the management of the radio station

    2. Gone through the airplay schedule, pick the words that would help construct part of their response

    3. Time it precisely

    4. Allow for alterations to the schedule

    5. Allow for Top 40 charting to alter

    6. Allow for programming or technical difficulties

    7. Allow for the transmission delay to arrive at your broken radio…I mean, Spiricom

    8. Allow for the difference in transmission delay from various carriers

    9. Repeat the above for every carrier in order for their response to coherent

    10. Go forward in time to allow you to ask the question

    11. Respond

    Wow…those spirits really are organised aren’t they? Any chance someone could contact a good, dead accountant?

    • TonyaK says:

      Unfortunately, the paranormal community will always latch onto the newest piece of woo-inspired technology that is put in front of them. The telephone to the dead is yesterday’s news. Now the biggest craze is the Ovilus, which, if I am understanding it correctly, generates random words from a pre-selected set of words, much like the newspaper clipping experiment that Susan was attempting to get Sharon to participate in. Only with batteries, which in the paranormal community equals science.

      • Ahh yes, the OIvilus. I love that gadget. The creator openly states the device is for entertainment purposes and requests buyers don’t treat it seriously. Then, he goes on to talk about how confused he was when he was receiving information from the “other side”. Grrreeeeeeaaaaat!

        Allegedly, it measures EMF and temperature and outputs via a programed voice chip.

        So now, spirits are using temperature and EMF as a method communication. It was a really cold day in Melbourne this morning. I guess this means the spirits were yelling all night?

        Anyway, the creator goes on to very briefly mention calibration of the device. It can be calibrated via the USB port and Windows only software. Now, I don’t know about you, but when I used to calibrate devices, I had to calibrate them for a purpose and have a starting point. What is the calibration source for spirits? What is the starting point?

        Calibration…..pfffffffft! ;)

  54. Susan G. says:

    Well Sharon you have totally convinced me. I know there is no way possible for someone who knows their dogs name to hear that same name when given enough random sounds, time and a need to hear the name. I assume that the listener would ignore all the possible names of pets they might have owned in their life (and their families and neighbors pets)and listen for only the ONE SPECIFIC pets name to come up?

    Yep, I’ve been to high school. Very good! Some more cold reading please.

    So did the woman after you “helped” her with her grief dry her tears and move on with her life? I still don’t understand this. Maybe I’m not not the typical mother of a dead daughter, but if she was “talking” to me I would have my ear glued to that box for the rest of my life. Nothing else would matter to me.

    In my world, reality matters a great deal to me, I can’t imagine living a life where science does not work, where logic and fact are nothing other than suggestions. When you open the door to these kinds of illogical miss-thinkings you are setting yourself up to being defrauded, scammed, and on and on.

    Susan G.

  55. Hmm, and what sort of personal info would a hair stylist or barber gather from a repeat customer? Dog’s name? Nicknames? Geeez. Now you listen to the noise and try to pick out “Fido”.

    I find it despicable to interfere in the grieving process with nonsense spirit boxes, and for profit, no less. Now some hapless family member believes their loved one is deceased, but not gone, is still available to communicate with. Her comfort is temporary, for each time that person ‘talks’ with the deceased throguh this stupid box, she gets a little closer to realizing it’s a bunch of nonsense. Will she feel ‘comforted’ when that ugly day comes?

    “But I don’t charge money for my sessions!”

    There are other forms of profit than pure $ fees, like personal notoriety, feeling ‘special’ because you can ‘talk with spirits’, increase in hair salon business among the credulous, and much else.

    Sure, you don’t charge money up front, but a profit is taken, dear, and people will be hurt. Despicable.

  56. Susan G. says:

    Soooo how much do you tip someone who just let you talk to your dead daughter? Just wondering….

  57. Denver says:

    Good morning. It’s a new day, and maybe time to try a new perspective. First, I’d like to applaud Sharon. It is not always easy for someone to defend their beliefs in a forum which does not hold those same views. It is those who believe they have discovered some kind of connection to the spirit world, but keep it in small circles of believers and will not expose it to the light of criticism, whom I trust the least.

    The term “researcher” has been bandied about a bit here, and is quite prevalent in EVP groups. But many of those who call themselves researchers seem to do so more to justify their belief, than to investigate their theories. A true researcher is trying to determine which theories hold up best in light of current knowledge, and so must be willing to change their theories based on new facts. Many in the EVP world seem to mostly be trying to find proof of their beliefs, and ignoring everything to the contrary. The fact that Sharon is here, makes me suspect she has some of the true researcher within her.

    So I would suggest this question. For Sharon: what is it you are specifically claiming, and what would it take for you to change your mind about your claims? Mark, same question: what is it about Sharon’s claims that you dispute, and what would it take for you to change your mind? I think both people have addressed these questions already somewhat, but it seemed a good idea to begin a focus just on those. If there is nothing that can change a person’s mind about their theories, then they are not really a researcher, are not objective in their claims or criticisms, and become part of that cagey “circle of believers”, whether that belief is in the afterlife, in EVPs, or in their own intelligence.

    • Two words….lottery numbers.

      • Sharon says:

        i didnt know they could predict the future again you are misinformed about what this communication is

      • They can’t predict the future? You mean, when they’re using words plucked out of the airwaves which have been broadcasted with a delay? They can move back in time but not forward? Surely they can travel through time. How else do you explain how they can pluck these words out of thin air?

        Nrrrrrr!

        Go back to sleep Sharon.

    • Sharon says:

      Denver I would like some of you to listen to what im getting and also do a session with me and explain what is is, like I said in a previous post I get alot of cursing and I dont understand how this could be comming over a radio. Now berfore you say oh its just radio frag, you really need to hear it.

      • Paul T. says:

        I personally don’t need to listen, I have one in my office right now. And it is easy to see, where someone could turn this random noise into an alleged spiritual session. But this is not spiritual communication, for those who are seeking answers it is wishful thinking and in some cases gullibility. For those conducting the sessions it is pure showmanship. The paranormal cannot fulfill its promises.

      • Denver says:

        Susan, maybe I’m kind of ‘slow’, but I’m still trying to understand the following: what is it you are specifically claiming, and what would it take for you to change your mind about your claims?

      • Susan G. says:

        I’m not making a claim. (unless you count the research with the fridge)

        I don’t think that we should encourage people to search for the best way to communicate with the dead, when No One Ever has proved that the dead speaks to the living.

        What would make me think there was something to all this? I want to see the unicorn!

      • Denver says:

        Whoops Susan – I actually meant to address that to Sharon. So…

        Sharon, maybe I’m kind of ’slow’, but I’m still trying to understand the following: what is it you are specifically claiming, and what would it take for you to change your mind about your claims?

  58. Susan, questions like that will get us all in trouble with the spirit union.

    Sharon, are these tips tax deductible?

  59. What exactly is she claiming? She’s already answered she knows only what she isn’t claiming. “I can’t read minds! I can’t see the future!”

    In so many words, she’s already admitted she has no idea what’s going on and merely chooses to believe it’s the voices of the dead. Her ‘claims’ are a confused and internally inconsistent hodge-podge of nonsense – I don’t know if they’re really spirits, but if they are, they lie, you know! Der huh? How does a ‘researcher’ come to know this – and know it so well she makes fun of anyone who doesn’t know it?

    She commands doubters to be openminded while at the same time refusing out of hand any suggestions as to what is going on that do not validate her belief it’s spirits.

    She’s been asked repeatedly to state what evidence she’d need to accept it isn’t spirits talking to her and has ignored every request.

    Mark Edward and many others have already statwed what they’d accept as proof this ‘spirit box’ is genuine and none has been provided. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Of course, she claims one has to experience for one’s self. Right.

    Ain’t nuthin’ goin’ on here beyond the typical believer obfuscation, evasions, dodges, ad hom against doubters, and special pleading we always get in lieu of anything approaching actual evidence.

    She is not a researcher, she’s an advocate, a salesman selling a paranormal belief and trying mightily to get people to listen to her radio program – yet another form of profit from a claimed ‘nonprofit’ spirit box jockey.

    Now, about that ice box, Susan G………

  60. “statwed” should have been “staetd”.

  61. Mark Edward says:

    Okay. I’ll try to address Denver’s question about what my question is and what it would take for me to change my mind. Which BTW; I have been known to do frequently.

    It’s glaringly simple really. So simple people like Sharon who apparently believe in what they are doing can’t see the elephant in the room.

    Before I again seek to clarify my question one more time, I think I need to lay down a few pre-requisites about what we think we know, (or are told by believers) is true about the spirit world. This will make my reasoning clear, even if this whole issue seems to have become a tiresoem exercise in “unicorn wings,” as Susan has written.

    Step #1) As far as my own research goes, spirits exist in an “ether” or some parallel world that rubs up against ours everywhere and only those specially gifted mediums (or boxes) can “hear” their whisperings. If we are to assume that grand concept is real just for the sake of his discussion, then they are everywhere and like some ghostly network, have instant communication with each other and are constantly in tune with the Akashis Records. Every psychic knows this.

    But in case Sharon has somehow missed this universal concept, I’ll paste a Wiki here:

    “The akashic records (akasha is a Sanskrit word meaning “sky”, “space” or “aether”) is a term used in theosophy (and Anthroposophy) to describe a compendium of mystical knowledge encoded in a non-physical plane of existence. These records are described to contain all knowledge of human experience and the history of the cosmos. They are metaphorically described as a library and other analogues commonly found in discourse on the subject include a ‘universal computer’ and the ‘Mind of God’. Descriptions of the records assert that they are constantly updated and that they can be accessed through astral projection. The concept originated in the theosophical movements of the 19th century, and remains prevalent in New Age discourse.”

    Right. So the spirits not only are forever linked with past events in history, but their select community can dip into this library at will and get whatever information is available there.

    Step #2) Since they are spirits, it is well known in seance circles that they can know our mortal thoughts; whether or not we may want them to know what we are thinking. How else does a medium do Q & A? They are “acting as a conduit for my spirit guides,” etc. (Acting being the operative word, but I digress…)

    If we accept premise #1 & #2, then it is no great leap in logic, however absurd, to go to Step #3)It would be totally unnecessary for me to give any information at all about the spirit I wished to reach as all that info is available to the spirits and they can readily see into my mind and know exactly who I’m thinking of. In fact, offering up the intials “MW” as I did is without any advanatage for any spirit entity and is in this case, only a extra added perk to the human medium (Sharon) to work with. Any self-respecting ghost would certainly shun such puny human interference, preferring to stick with their own “universal computer” to punch-up their own vastly superior info on whatever enitity I might have in my mind. Simple, right? There was/is absolutely no need whatsoever for Sharon to have to “read my mind.” The spirits take care of all that. It’s what they do!

    Check it out, it’s all in the literature.

    So by 12:56 p.m. yesterday, one minute after I sent out my challenge, Sharon or one of her cohorts with access to a “box” should have been able to dial up at least one spirit, and bored, liar or not, get a immediate line on who and what I needed to know.

    By 5:00 p.m., if such valid communication transpired, and the entity I had on my mind had been intercepted by one of those hanging out in the ether, I would have had conclusive proof that dead people can indeed communicate with the living. Having received that information,I would have kept my word, resigned from this blog and forever after been declared a tried and true believer.

    Well, it didn’t happen that way did it? In fact, Sharon and her lot simply dodged and waved off the whole experiment with lame ass excuses like; “It doesn’t work that way.” Really? Yes it does according to your own doctrines available in any new age shop or Theosophical temple.

    You see, I have done my homework. And not only have I gone to high school and beyond, I have labored long and hard in the very vineyards that spawned Spiracom, Sylvia Browne and every other low-life con artist that you may like to hold up as ” spirit researcher,” including Mr. Moon.

    Excuses like, “I’m tired and have had a long day.” Or “I have to go and make dinner now,” are just hilarious examples of how without a leg to stand on and when faced with the inevitable truth that they have nothing new to offer; psychics, mediums and other pond scum can only defer to the most common of very human cop-outs. Boo Hoo.

    Sorry Sharon, I gave you every chance to vindicate yourself and your cause, but you failed miserably. Now it’s time for me to move on.

  62. OOOOOOOOOM…… MW
    OOOOOOOOOM…… MW

    I’m getting something… it’s faint… MW… MW…
    BEEP – ‘Searching Akashic Files. Please Wait’……
    BEEP – ‘Searching Akashic Files. Please Wait’……

    Ah, there it is. WE HAVE THE BODY.

    “MW” was your great uncle Milton Q. Woncapaloonta, of Shaker Heights, OH, near Cleveland, who lived at 334 Bleecker St, in the rear left upstairs bedroom, blue and gray plaid bed comforter of 50% cotton, 50% polyester. He weighed 540 lbs, was 4’11” tall (standing up or lying down), with buck teef, balding, born without forearms, and was quite the ladies’ man I’m told.

    He was considered by friends and family to be a bit eccentric, but in a charming sort of way, particularly in his manner of dress, favoring men’s briefs in day-glo colors worn outside his bib overalls with a clear plastic propellered beanie on his head. He was quite popular by all accounts, frequently enjoying visits from friends, family, clergy, the SPCA, and the occasional law enforcement officer.

    Before retiring to Shaker Heights, Mr. Woncapaloonta was a farmer in rural Pennsylvania, moving later to the high desert plateau of central Ohio. He reluctantly became a sheep breeder because he was just too short to breed horses. He liked people, especially blind women, and loved to visit the park in town to chat up strangers, often bringing along his personal sheep-breeder’s photo journal, which clearly impressed people.

    Living and loving his life on the farm and his work with sheep, Uncle Milton did not live long into his retirement years. But he died exactly when and how he’d often said he’d hoped to die – at age 99, shot to death in bed by a jealous ram.

    This concludes today’s reading.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    How’d I do?

  63. Mark Edward says:

    Devil’s Advocate: You have clearly missed your calling as a psychic reader. There’s still time to make some extra cash on a 900 osychic line. Brillaint really!

    Now to the nitty-gritty I had hoped to hear by 5:00 p.m. yesterday:

    I was sending out a psychic shout to my dear deceased oldest known ancestor martyred Scottish Covnenanter, Margaret Wilson, who was tied to a stake and left to drown in the Solway Bay near Wigtown in 1685. She was a sprightly lass and known to have been quite a rebel in her own youthful way. She delivered many raucous insults to those who persecuted her that day, but any hint of such things as “…The water is cold” or one of her famous expletives such as “…Think you that we are the sufferers?” or some such salty quote would have sufficed to turn me away from the skeptical slant, but such was not to be. It is hidiously clear to anyone of Scottish ancestry or knowledge of the Wilson family that if any spirit so poorly treated and martyred were to cry out from beyond the grave, it would have been Margaret.

    R.I.P.

    • Missing my calling IS my calling. I’ve done it all my life.

      Aye lad, an’ wud ye know me own Da was born in fair Caledonia? Motherwell, if ye ken it.

      An’ me mither was barn in Cork, Ireland, but we’ve all fargiven ‘er this Hibernian curse as not o’ ‘er own doin’.

  64. Susan G. says:

    Wonder who sent you the elevator, ouchie message then? I’m sure Margaret thinks your a good boy, and wants to recommend a book.

  65. Denver says:

    I understand what Mark is saying, but I don’t know if Sharon is claiming exactly those things. Sharon, just as it is unfair to put words in your mouth as to what you claim to be able to do, it is also unfair for you to make people watch you and try to figure it out.

    So at this point I’d still like to hear from Sharon, as to exactly what your claims are?

    • “I understand what Mark is saying, but I don’t know if Sharon is claiming exactly those things.”

      This is the 121st post. Sharon’s first post came at #10. Do you think maybe there’s been sufficient time for her to articulate a specific claim, assuming (c) she has a specific claim, and (4) she is able to articulate it?

  66. Sharon says:

    I was at work all day, all Im claiming is thatI feel i get commuunication.so all Im asking is for some to listen to what I get
    not what youve heard from others but what im getting, and after you hear it please give a logical explanation. The its just radio frag doesnt cut it for me i hsve to many cursing files as well as DIRECT answers to questions that I dont think you would hear on an am, radio

    • Sharon says:

      Ok i sent Mark a file yesterday from a session I did in potters feild ( an old grave yard’)the file stated “dont call the F%$#king grave” Mark stated it was probably a ham radio .LOL That excuse doesnt cut it

      • Can’t you see how you rule out any suggestion that contradicts your belief you’re recordingspirit voices?

        Why couldn’t it be ham radio transmissions? If there’s cussing involved, it’s probably not commercial TV or radio, and it’s probably not police, fire, or emergency vehicle traffic because they usually get into trouble for swearing on the air. But ham radios, CB radios, walkie-talkies,etc., these would all have a certain amount of swearing involved.

        So, please explain…. how and why do you rule out ham or other personal radio transmissions when you admit you have no idea what you’re hearing or where it comes from?

        Isn’t that the very definition of closedminded?

        The Claim, Articulated: “all Im claiming is that I feel i get commuunication.”

        And how is anyone to investigate your feeling? No matter what is presented, you can ‘feel’ it’s wrong. In fact, that’s precisely what you are doing.

      • Mr Stu dislikes WOO! says:

        Sharon, when you sent Mark this file did you tell him what the audio is saying? As in, when you sent him the file, did you say something in the lines of “Hey Mark here’s an audio file I got from Potters Field and it says “dont call the F%$#king grave””?

        If you told him what was being “said”, you just pre conditioned him to hear this “voice/answer” even if it isn’t there. When you tell people what is being “said” they are going to hear it no matter what. This is bad methodology. It is extremely flawed.

        If you are going to send these pieces of audio “evidence” you should NOT tell the person what is being said. If the audio is that crystal clear to you it should also be crystal clear to others and they shouldn’t need to be told what is being said.

        Also, in doing your research, did you research, and take into consideration, the human conditions of Pareidolia, Apophenia, conditioning, leading and the power of suggestion?

        You have to take into consideration that we, as human animals, have a great talent of making sense and order out of random chaos and nothingness. It’s our big ol brians trying to put meaning into something that’s not even there… you know, like the face in the moon, images in clouds, the “babbling” brook and so on.

        As being one who has researched the box, and ITC in general, I have seen this condition come into play EVERY single time. The group I’m in (Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society) discusses this extensively in our monthly lectures.

        Now if you did not tell him what is being said than Kudos! But keep in mind the VAST majority of those doing box/EVP/ITC “research” ALWAYS tell people what is being “said” in these audio files. It really just makes a complete joke of the word research and what these people think is science.

      • Sharon says:

        would u be open to me sending u audio and not telling you what it is and give me HONEST feedback

  67. Denver says:

    Thanks Sharon. So I hear “you feel you get communication”. Are there any claims you can make about that? For example, do you claim this is from the deceased, or aliens, or something else? Do you claim this is reliable communication? Is there anything you can say about it?

  68. Sharon says:

    Well from all the research ive done I do feel its from the deceased. now as far as reliable? That is a tough question .honestly at this point in my studies I have to say no. Just because I pull some one through and they say its your dead relative I have no way to prove that . I do have a lot of validation files and what I like to call evidence files but I still cant make any guarantees to whom or what it is. However I am working hard on always trying new things and new ideas. there are going to be new devices coming out that will make our communication better. now the reason I rule out the ham radio thing is because I do this research every day so to get direct answers to questions by what coincidence? I have way to many files for that to be. Mark even stated maybe it was Howard stern comming through, Hes on sirus or something Im using an am radio.I am open to logical explanations .

    • As a researcher, surely you can understand the flaws in this device and it’s theory?

      Are you able to point any out?

      How do you account for these flaws?

      How do you eliminate contamination, ie, HAM radio transmission?

      A researcher will accept scrutiny of their research. A researcher will endeavor to understand the device. It’s pros and cons.

      Simply stating “you feel” does not give this device or it’s use any credibility.

    • Here are some logical explanations…

      1. The device performs a linear scan of carriers. You WILL hear voices or what could potentially class as “communication”.
      2. You have concluded this device is a spirit communication tool before you turned it on.
      3. The “communication” could potentially translate to anything in any language.
      4. Interference from outside sources such as HAM, CB, walkie talkie etc. Hell, I have a guitar amp that played my neighbors radio shows. Do you have any equipment that can measure these outside sources such as a spectrum analyzer?

      As a researcher, have you done anything at all?

    • Paul T. says:

      “I am open to logical explanations” this blog is filled with logical explanations. And as far as cursing coming through my colleagues and I spent half the morning listening to our Box, if you listen hard enough you can pick out enough cursing from the random audio to sound like Deaf Comedy Jam.

      • Susan G. says:

        Well Sharon, if there is cursing going on then it must be dead people talking. What else could that mean?

  69. Casarojo says:

    Sharon, you hear a lot of cursing coming from your box. Can you think of a reason that someone else, other than yourself, may hear cursing in ‘noise’? Can you think of any other explanation other than ‘dead people’? No matter how remote the explanations may seem to you? Any at all?

    From the FWIW file. A possible evolutionary reason for pareidolia along the lines of Sagan’s hypothesis, is that it goes directly to the fight or flight response. Our minds are trying to decide if a given phenomenon is dangerous and though our experiences and beliefs we arrive at a conclusion. Obviously, the imagination plays a major role. This is currently my general hypothesis for all paranormal experiences. Any thoughts are appreciated.

    Now I have a headache ;-).

    Susan G., is your refrigerator still running?

  70. Sharon says:

    You guys havent listend to my files so you have no right to say what is is or isn’t.How can you be so sure when you havent heard it. your just judging me on what you yourselves or others have gotten THATS NOT FAIR.

  71. Frank R. says:

    What I find interesting is the finger pointing and name calling on both sides. Its entertaining to watch! Of course the “skeptics” are drawing first blood with this latest bout so let’s take a look at their tactics. You have been disrespectful, argumentative, insulting and ignorantly opinionated. A few of your responses are just baiting some of these “researchers” into an argument and I say, “whatever makes your skirt fly”. Then to throw around science as a shield without citing anything to back you up in order to discredit these claims is unethical and against the very nature of scientific research and testing.

    I have known Sumption and a few others for quite a while now. Frank has never claimed to be anything other than a curious experimenter with his boxes or other methods. I have played with some of the ‘hacks’, designed my own systems, and listen to literally thousands of files from other experimenters. I have yet to find a more clear and unexplainable method than just recording the sounds of a quiet room. As for others files, I don’t always hear the same words as the other person what I still recognize words and the cadence of speech. Some people like to call themselves researchers but I have yet to see any structured data produced from their research, so I lump them in with experimenters, which is okay.

    With that being said, I have yet to see one ‘skeptic’ do any sort of test or research (beyond scouring blogs for argument ammunition and spouting drivel based on their own perceptions, which are just as flawed as anyone else’s). I have seen over the year’s blogs like this, papers written on the subject, arguments on forums and you all spout the same crap with no real evidence to contradict the claims. You just give an opposing view with some uneducated personal argument.

    I tell you what! Do a search on Google for hypothesis testing or the stages of hypothesis testing. Once you get the basics down, perform a short study with some of the best sound files you can collect from the internet. Really give it an effort! Be honest in you attempt! Try to prove your claims via the way of science instead of believing science thinks it’s impossible. Science works on probabilities of truth not necessarily truth for its own sake.

    • Ah, the second most popular woo dodge – ad hominem attacks against doubters, without adressment of their stated doubts.

      Does the probability that Sharon is hearing and misinterpreting mundane, living human voices pulled from the noise change depending on whether it is offered sweetly or with derision?

      When woo goes under attack, it tries to divert into irrelevancies.

    • kabol says:

      $”I have seen over the year’s blogs like this, papers written on the subject, arguments on forums and you all spout the same crap with no real evidence to contradict the claims.”$

      the onus is NOT on the skeptical reader to provide evidence to contradict these very, very extraordinary claims. i haven’t seen any “crap”, but i have read many, many highly likely and very reasonable possibilities for what is occurring with these scanners on blogs and in forums all over the internet.

      $”You just give an opposing view with some uneducated personal argument.”$

      you obviously aren’t reading very carefully or objectively.

      any skeptical reader here would no doubt LOVE LOVE LOOOOOVE to have a large group of scientists gather together to take on the task of testing this would-be world-changing device.

      alas, the owners of these devices won’t even take up the JREF challenge for a million dollar prize, much less subject the radio scanner to any amount of very public scientific peer review.

      why do you suppose that is? cause the scientific world which gave us computers, space travel and the theory of relativity is filled with closed minded crap mongers???

      snort!

  72. Casarojo says:

    “Try to prove your claims via the way of science instead of believing science thinks it’s impossible.”

    The burden of proof falls on the claimant. Anecdotal evidence (stories) is unacceptable. BTW you know of a psychic that predicted the current apparently imminent swine flu pandemic with any specificity? Did the box have anything to say? What does it say now? How many US citizens will die from it? (let’s say give or take 20 over the next six months) Canada? Australia? Spain? Iceland? Philippines? Japan? What can we do to stop it. I forgot, my bad. The box doesn’t actually give actual useful information. A shame.

  73. Frank R. says:

    Unfortunately, the response is always the same. I know, I know the burden of proof is on us right! *sigh* When your not willing to accept any evidence as proof it kind of hard to give anything credibility, right!

    ****ITC experimenters, no matter how tempting it is to post a rebuttal, don’t! They are a waste of time and energy.****

    • Frank Sumption says:

      Yeah, waste of time and a good bitch slap, but it’s fun!

      The only real thing I say to the skeptic/debunker–you have no magic –apparently, in your lives. Where’s the joy, where wonder. You act like you already know everything, no alfterlife, no spirit, no future, no real existence, except what your masters/handlers give you. Pathetic!

      Beside, people waste money on all kinds of worthless junk, where’s your outrage at the everyday rip offs. Where’s your out rage at medical scam from the doctors and hospitols? Ya know, they kill more than any herb ever did in the last 10,000years! Where’s the righteous indignation over that? Better take a closer look at everything
      you think you know. Oh yeah, I forgot, in religion, you’re not allowed to question!

      Frank

      Frank

      • kabol says:

        rut-roh! you’re waxing irrational, frank.

      • Frank, we’ll move on to the medical scams from the doctors and hospit(A)ls just as soon as we’re done with your questionable product.

        No magic? I don’t need a broken radio to get a little “joy” out of life. I have a broken radio in my 71 Pacer and that thing plain pisses me off royally.

        Does your device have an AUX input for an iPod? That would be cool.

  74. Frank R. says:

    Damn, called that one!

  75. Denver says:

    Sharon – thanks for your honest answers. This seems to bring up a possible ethical dilemma. Since you indicated you have no way to tell if the results you are interpreting are reliable, and even if it were a spirit it could be lying, how clear do you make this to people for whom you are conduction sessions? For example, in the sad case of the lady you mentioned who lost a daughter, did you all provide her with a disclaimer, such has “We are researchers, and do not make any claims as to the reliability or truth of what you are about to hear. We don’t know if there are really spirits talking, or if there are, if they are lying”. Since you believe that to be the case, it would seem unethical not to present that information to someone for whom you are conducting a session, especially a vulnerable person.

    I am all for people making their own choices as to what they believe. But I am also all for giving them the information they need to make good choices. And especially if they are vulnerable.

  76. Casarojo says:

    “Damn, called that one!”

    Frank, I guess you win with all your “credible evidence”. There’s nothing it could be but dead people and/or demons. Why can’t I be more open minded like that?

  77. Sharon says:

    Denver I tell everyone that there are no guarantees.I get comunication but not every session is productive and just because a spirit might claim to be someone there is no way to prove it. This is one of the reasons I feel charging money for this is not right.I do honestly believe Im getting communication .

  78. Denver says:

    “No guarantees” sounds like a good start, but I think people could misinterpret that to “No guarantees that we will hear anything intelligible, but if we do, then it’s good.” This would be especially true of someone grasping for comfort. I think it’s good you don’t charge money for something that is unreliable, but I think to be ethical wouldn’t it be best to include the disclaimer I mentioned?

  79. kabol says:

    “Frank, I guess you win with all your “credible evidence”. There’s nothing it could be but dead people and/or demons. Why can’t I be more open minded like that?”

    if you could be that “open-minded”, or even just pretend to be – with today’s paranormal TV show GLUT, evidently you could make LOTS of money while you’re at the open-mindedness.

    i say we just start a show featuring the raunchy refrigerator.

    has anyone actually emailed sharon? does she end up asking for money?

    • Susan G. says:

      “i say we just start a show featuring the raunchy refrigerator.”

      It’s NOT rauchy! Its an Amana in excellent condition, very few miles. First owner was a little old lady that only took it to church on Sundays…

      • kabol says:

        OK – the refrigerator is in mint condition, but “speaks” about raunchy topics.

        that would make an awesome TV show. or at the very least a guest appearance on SNL or “the daily show”.

  80. kabol says:

    i’m such a cynic. poor sharon is probably ready to save the world with her radio scanner for free, and i’m just seeing ulterior motive$.

  81. Sidebar: My toaster has started barking at me.

  82. Frank, in order for something to classify as evidence or proof it needs to qualify as such. What protocols have you followed to qualify anything from this box as evidence?

    • Frank Sumption says:

      I don’t follow any protocols-I don’t care about giving proof. When I do my recoprdings I don’t ask questions, I let them tell mne waht I need, and it works out pretty well. I’m not jumoing through fro some crackheads that won’t accept anythign anyway.

      My take on the box is that it works, it designed, and meant to be used by the individual to contacts gu8ides and other entites, for the purpose of guidence and insight into existnce. When you get voices that from time to time,. cuss, swear and call you names, you can be sure it ain’t just radio, and it’s not imagination.

      Frank

      • kabol says:

        “I don’t follow any protocols-I don’t care about giving proof.”

        that particular mindset seems to be rampant in the paranormal indu$try.

      • Susan G. says:

        I wonder if he writes like the box sounds?

      • Frank, if you don’t care about giving proof then why are you here? Why are you desperately trying to convince anyone your snake oil, I mean, broken radio that performs a linear scan….sorry, I mean, frequency scanner….oh man….telephone to the dead….what is it called again?

        Anyway…you get my point.

  83. Devil’s Advocate, I’m personally holding you responsible for the liquid damage on my keyboard from the coffee I was attempting to drink.

  84. kabol says:

    PCs are obviously way more “intelligent” than refrigerators or toasters. or telephones.

    i want a PC to the dead, pronto.

    • Frank Sumption says:

      See, that’s where there’s no checking of facts! EVPmaker runs ona PC. It works pretty much the same as the boxes, and has been around since the 80s. The enities manipulate the sound inside the computer! You can use the program with speech allophone–no real workds and still get meaningfule statements–so go debunk that bozos! BTW–it’s free too, no one making any money! Y’all hjust want it go away–no thinking, no dead, just what fat old fart sitting in a university tells you is ok to think about.

      Frank

      • kabol says:

        so, the dead need someone’s specific software/hardware to communicate?

        how convenient for the software/hardware creators!

        “no real workds and still get meaningfule statements”

        yes, EVPs consist of no real words and the meaningfulness is blatantly in the ears of the beholder.

        is a spirit typing for you? i’d ask them to lay off the…whatever spirits ingest that makes them type like that!

      • Frank, please, just go away. I’ve seen sock puppets more convincing than your arguments.

  85. Sharon says:

    I have NEVER asked for any money and never will. And still you guys continue to bash me and what I do never hearing any of it. That is about as closed minded as you can get.

  86. kabol says:

    “i say we just start a show featuring the raunchy refrigerator.”

    actually, scratch that. that was the cynic in me typing.

    i just want to see “the skeptologists” on TV.

    like, yesterday.

  87. kabol says:

    “I have NEVER asked for any money and never will.”

    ok, well — i did (sort of) retract my comment. it’s admirable that you never have and never will ask for money for your usage of the “phone to the dead”. you do understand, of course, that actually puts you in a very small minority — paranormal scammers are at large.

    i’m also very sorry that you’re out however much $$ you paid for *your* particular radio scanner.

    i guess you aren’t one of those magic 30 who have the secret powers bestowed by edison from the great beyond.

  88. Frank Sumption says:

    Fridgerator!? try a coffeepot, as in coffepotghost.com Fact is, anything that makes noise can, and will be used for spirits to make voices with, if someione is listening. BTW it is us, and in particular-the skeptics/debunker that have all the limitations, not spirit.

    Frank

  89. Sharon says:

    Ahh Mr. moons words, Yea he gave us all a bad name.

  90. Sharon says:

    Oh and I do work with quite a few researchers that dont charge either.
    When we got wind of how much Moon was charging we started a FREE website for people that were interested

  91. kabol says:

    “Fact is, anything that makes noise can, and will be used for spirits to make voices with, if someione is listening”

    that’s a fact, is it?

    i always knew the spirits were trying to communicate when the dogs actually pass gas out loud. i just KNEW it!

  92. Casarojo says:

    “I don’t follow any protocols-I don’t care about giving proof.”

    That pretty much says it all. ‘I do not care about the truth’.

    And Frank, I think that the universe is far more wondrous than anything you could imagine. There’s plenty of “magic”, plenty that we don’t know or understand, plenty to wonder over and about without making up and endorsing fantasy as reality. Using one’s imagination is fun! But imagining that one’s imagination is, in fact, reality without consideration, is simply an unintelligent way to try and gain any useful knowledge.

    The simple truth is that the proponents of the paranormal, the one’s that aren’t interested in finding the truth, are deluded or they are trying to rip people off. It really is just that simple. If you’re looking for the truth then you do that the best way possible. The best way we currently have for uncovering facts about the world we live in is the scientific method. Of course you believe that your imagination is the ultimate litmus test. That is indeed, scary. Seriously scary.

    • Frank Sumption says:

      The scientific method is a joke! That’s what medicine, and the drug cartels use to get what ever result they want! I guarantee you could fund a study to prove EVP, and you could fund a study to disprove EVP, just depends on what results you’re looking for.

      I’m nor looking for any thruth, I just stumbled upon this stuff out of curiosity–but No–I must so stupid– I can’t tell I’m imagining it, every cuss word-that is never broadcast. Friggin’ skeptics, just a bunch of egotistical little dweebs that don’t have a life, and are too afraid to research anything themselves, you’d rather have some dork tell you what’s safe to believe. You can’t even consider any possiblities wihtout checking with some other authority!

      BTW, I don’t do “ghost hunts” and I don’t believe in hauntings-and yet-“they” talk to me–go figure!

      Frank

      • Mr Stu dislikes WOO! says:

        “BTW, I don’t do “ghost hunts” and I don’t believe in hauntings-and yet-”they” talk to me–go figure!”

        And yet you’ll be doing an appearance at the Queen Mary with the Darkness Radio crew… Hmm?

        http : //www.darknessradio.com/TRIPS/PSIence/index.htm

        Poor Shermer, What did he get himself into.

      • Ouch!

        “Over $3,000 given away in grants for upcoming paranormal inventors!”

        Sounds like a bunkfest! I have a feather duster that can open portals to other dimensions! That $3000 prize money is as good as mine!

      • “are too afraid to research anything themselves” – Frank, I’ve used these useless devices. I have one in my possession. I can honestly tell you that any device that is alleged to contact the dead is nothing more than bunk. Define research please.

        “That’s what medicine, and the drug cartels use to get what ever result they want!” – let’s not forget scientific method(s) are also responsible for the electricity powering your bunk device. The internet you exploit to sell your bunk. The TV you watch your favorite Ghost Hunting shows that promote your bunk. The radio stations that populate the airwaves that give your bunk its “voices”..etc etc. There’s a lot to scientific method(s) you’re ignoring,

        “I’m nor looking for any thruth” – that much is obvious.

        “Friggin’ skeptics, just a bunch of egotistical little dweebs that don’t have a life,” – Amusing! Coming from people who sit and talk to their broken radios and put themselves up on a pedestal of self righteousness.

        “you’d rather have some dork tell you what’s safe to believe” – as opposed to believing you right? Hmmm?

        “You can’t even consider any possiblities wihtout checking with some other authority!” – Wait, didn’t you just mention we’re too afraid to do research? Poor Frank. You’re spending too much time alone with your broken radio.

        “I don’t believe in hauntings” – Yes Frank. We can see that belief in “ghosts” is something you definitely don’t have.

  93. Edgar Cayce says:

    Thought for the Day – 05/01/2009
    Category: Religion and Philosophy
    This is the first lesson ye should learn: There is so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us, it doesn’t behoove any of us to speak evil of the rest of us. This is a universal law, and until one begins to make application of same, one may not go very far in spiritual or soul development.

    Edgar Cayce Reading 3063-1

    • Back to sleep, Eddie. Nobody buys your crap anymore.

    • kabol says:

      dearest dead edgar, your “wisdom from beyond” is just a restating of a fairly well-known and common proverb, see below – couldn’t you have come up with something more mind-shattering, like cold fusion / dark matter mathematical equations?!

      PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN’T THROW STONES – “Those who are vulnerable should not attack others. The proverb has been traced back to Geoffrey Chaucer’s ‘Troilus and Criseyde’ (1385). George Herbert wrote in 1651: ‘Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another.’ This saying is first cited in the United States in ‘William & Mary College Quarterly’ (1710). Twenty-six later Benjamin Franklin wrote, ‘Don’t throw stones at your neighbors’, if your own windows are glass.’ ‘To live in a glass house’ is used as a figure of speech referring to vulnerability.” From “Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings” (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).

  94. As I walked past, my vaccuum cleaner whispered, “I channel dead people,” to which I replied, “sucker.”

  95. Paul T. says:

    What time zone?

  96. All jokes aside, whilst doing valuable paranormal research, I stumbled across other methods of spirit communication.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxZabf3u89s

  97. Pareidolia will, um, console ya…..

    Those weren’t spontaneous words, they were just reading the captions right there in front of them. Sheesh.

  98. kabol says:

    heh, TFF! my cat was asleep on the PC desk and jumped up and started looking behind the monitor on that first one.

    i get the impression that they’re far too smart to pretend to be channeling spirits. i wonder what they really think about their humans…

  99. Dogs and cats smart? Pfffffft. I paid a farmer $50 for a dog he said could play chess. Geeeeeez. He was pretty good, but I’m no chess player and I still beat that dog at least one out of every three games.

    • kabol says:

      oh yeah, well my cat is smarter than your dog. except for that looking behind the monitor thing…

  100. Life’s Three Eternal Questions

    1. How did the Universe begin?

    2. How did life on Earth begin?

    3. Why does a cat always find himself on the wrong side of a door?

    • kabol says:

      oh it’s on.
      actually, not really – i am ambipetsterous.
      but the door thing, so true.

      i’ve never seen any cats chasing their tails.

  101. At the time of this post, there were 222 posts on this threat.

    That’s one third of SATAN! Mwa ha haaaaaaaaaaaaa!

    • Susan G. says:

      “Thread” not “threat”

      Sharon where are you? I want to know what evidence was uncovered on your show?

  102. DA mulls “ambipetsterous” and suggests “polypetsterous” might be more inclusive of fish, bird, and other pets. (?)

    • kabol says:

      sorry, fish and birds are dinner, not pets.

      and if you’re from the southern US, a whole bunch of other critters are dinner and not pets. well, i was thinking reptiles – but they’re actually pretty evenly distributed between dinner and pets. no, no — more dinner.

  103. Charles says:

    I have just read you article and I found some interesting comments especially about Chris Moon. But I don’t agree with everything, I let place to the doubt: pretendind being scepticals you still have prejudices about what is true or not.Science especially with physic since Albert Einstein have made tremendous changes(he would have been considered like mad during the mid 1800’s) and may give soon or later an explanation to those kind of phenomenas (parallel worlds, other dimensions). The best way to be sure if those kind of experiences are true or not is to experiment yourself without fear of being a fool and with an open mind, without prejudices from on side or another. I have personnaly tried EVP, i had something really strange on my cassette but i had no evidence that it was a pirit talking to me.nevertheless it must interesting to go on and try to get new results, but I wont let other people than myself do the job for me in order to be 100% secure of the result.

  104. Rj says:

    Charles – there is nothing wrong with theorizing and experimenting. There is nothing wrong with having doubts and prejudices about what is scientifically true or not. That is why the scientific method is so important: it allows for all these things, and encourages retesting, theory modification, peer review, and argument. People are allowed to object when these kinds of elements are suppressed, when procedures are hidden, when claims are made without testing, and when anyone raising a discenting view is called a skeptic and dismissed.

    The best way to be sure these experiences are true is not, as you said, to simply experiment yourself. There is nothing wrong with that, but because it is very easy for even the most intelligent to fool themselves, misinterpret data, or be influenced by their own prejudice to BELIEVE, one must go beyond personal experiments, and involve peers, and non-believers, so that all subjectivity can be driven out of the testing, and in the end, the best theories can be confirmed, and the less so, dismissed.

    While many EVP researchers are dipping their toe in the scientific method (they are collecting data, making observations, and theorizing), they never take the complete plunge, by following up with predictions and objective experiments, with peer review and publishing (beyond a circle of believers), and with theory modification or dismissal, when appropriate.

    The most egregious not only ignore these elements, but charge the vulnerable money for services and ‘readings’, which are based on the prejudices and beliefs (or dishonesty) of the EVP practitioner. This is why you see such outrage over EVP claims: not because of the research, but because of its abuse, and its damage to others. This is more than a lack of knowledge in an unexplored area: this is an evil.

    The English philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ In this case, and in this thread, good men are not willing to allow that evil to triumph.

  105. Jeshua says:

    Just a small note to Glenn. I am surprised that no one else picked up on the fact that has not been proved that time travel is not possible. Einstein’s theory of relativity allows for the possibility. Not that i’ll be getting into any device made by the likes of Sharon and Frank, or anyone else with such poor writing skills and illogical reasoning!

    Kirsten, your faith in Uri is sorely misplaced. He was thoroughly, embarrassingly and famously debunked by Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show, which you can look up on Youtube. Johnny bent over backwards to make the test fair and put poor Uri at ease, but he failed spectacularly, spouting excuses that sounded a good bit like those of Sharon and Frank.

    And for Kabol, i believe the NT has an even earlier version of “people who live in grass houses should not stow thrones.” Although it comes from a story believed to be a late addition, it does say something like “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

    Best joke so far: My toaster can’t be trusted because it says the first thing that pops up. ROFL! Best point so far: no one has even proved the existence of spirits, so attempting to communicate with them may be a little premature.

    Finally, there is something to be said for gathering useful information from random noise, though it doesn’t involve any woo woo as far i know. Sometimes it helps me write music by listening to the sound of loud machinery, but i never imagined it to be spirits communicating with me.

  106. gwen says:

    I just can’t believe all of the woo that this post generated!!!
    *sigh* spirits don’t exist…end of sentence.
    To say they don’t speak is to admit they might exist.
    *sigh* spirits don’t exist.
    Just because scientist did not initially believe a theory that was later found to be correct still doesn’t make 2+2=4,689765 plausible.
    Science is about FALSIFIABILITY! How can you falsify the existence of ‘spirits’ that are impossible by the current laws of physics?
    duh!!

  107. Kris Bates says:

    I bet my husband would love to talk to anyone about this…My husband worked with Chris Moon A.k.a Christopher Huff “Moon” with his Ghost Hunter Magazine/Haunted Times. I am just sick to my stomach with all this FRAUD that is going on. I lost my sister in April and for some FOOL to charge the money that HE is charging to talk to people who have crossed over…and only HE can understand it..hes the chosen one right? HA HA HA! People who charge to talk to loved ones who have crossed over..what a joke. Email me….we can share some great stories about this fraud going on.. krissillygirl@hotmail.com

  108. Erin says:

    If you’re actually occupied with dog potty grass, I’m certain you may find this http://hubpages.com/hub/Dog-Potty-Grass article helpful as well.