I
would like to work in survival research. What should
I do to begin?
Should I
believe
Wikipedia and
White Noise?
Question: I watched the movie
white noise and
it is what got me interested in EVP. I have heard
and read about it on Wikipedia, and I know that it
is a debated subject. I do wonder how people can
prove that EVP is really real. I wonder, doesn't the
TV wavelengths, or wavelengths from a radio cause
EVP. How do people actually know that they are
hearing from a loved one instead of a TV show, or a
mix between that and the radio. I also once heard
that the majority of EVP recordings are violent in
nature. Is this true, and if so, how does it affect
EVP studies and does it set your research back
because people are afraid to get into it. Now I'm
sure the movie over exaggerated EVP when people
involved in it kept getting hurt, but I wonder, do
people involved in EVP end up hurt in some way
often, or is it very rare.
Answer: We receive quite a few questions
like yours.
I should first address the
article about EVP in Wikipedia. Frankly, it is
an embarrassment of incorrect and misleading
information in what claims to be
an authoritative encyclopedia. Tom Butler
has written an article about our concerns titled,
Concerns with Wikipedia.
He also asks that other webmasters include the
link logo on that page in their website as a way to
spread the word of caution. It is written for
all "frontier
subjects" and not just EVP. His hope is that,
rather than condemning the article as an "attack
article," the editors of Wikipedia will accept
it as a challenge to prove that he is wrong.
As you have done here, it is
good to seek input from other sources. For
instance, you might consider asking the same
question of some of the hauntings investigation
groups.
As for distinguishing the utterances from stray
TV or radio signals, EVP have been recorded in
radio-frequency and acoustically isolated
chambers.
Eliminating Radio Frequency Contamination for EVP is
an example of a test that you could perform.
Alexander MacRae has published an article in the
October 2005
British Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research that details his research in a
Mil-Spec screened room. Of course the
inexpensive recorders favored for EVP are prone
to RF contamination, but it is easy to tell
when it happens. See the list of common
characteristics found in recorder EVP for what
we refer to as "transform EVP" in the article,
Electronic Voice Phenomena. Very long examples are automatically
suspect.
We consider EVP to be communication, and in
transform EVP, the voice often directly answers
questions or includes a comment typical of the
one thought to be speaking. However, our
recommendation is that, if
there is any doubt, the example should be
rejected.
It is becoming more common for experimenters to
use more than one recorder at the same time, or
to record in groups. As you can see in
Using a second audio recorder as a
control,
one of the Best Practices we are trying to
develop makes it clear that a control recorder
is important to help rule out false positives.
If you go to
Speech Synthesis,
you can hear examples of two other forms of
EVP--both using
allophones as a raw sound
source. The
EVPMaker example is convincingly
two-way communication, yet it was made in a
closed system using computer generated bits of
simulated human voice and a random number
process to assemble a sound stream. We refer to
that as "opportunistic EVP." The second set of
examples were made using a voice synthesis
computer circuit stimulated with changes in the
electrical field of the room. Again, no "live"
voice was used and the nature of the device
makes audio and RF contamination unlikely.
It is difficult to say an utterance is RF
contamination when a question put to a loved one
is answered correctly in the right voice, age
and gender, and with the mannerisms the person
had while in the flesh. Of course, we remain
open for alternative explanations because there
is much we do not understand. But in practical
terms, when a mother conducts a session to
communicate with her daughter or son on the
other side, we tend to yield to her sense of who
she is speaking with. The evidence is strongly
in her favor.
You will notice that I keep saying EVP as a
plural--phenomena and not phenomenon--as it is
in Wikipedia. You will also notice that we are
dealing with a high degree of certainty that the
explanations offered to discount EVP have been
easily addressed, including processing artifacts,
imagination and mistaken assignment of meaning. That
last part is discussed in the
EVP online listening trials
report,
but has been addressed many times. For instance,
see
Computer–Based Analysis of Supposed Paranormal Voice.
There are some really good arguments against EVP
being proof of survival of consciousness after
physical death, but the policy of refusing the
input of subject matter experts pretty well
assure that the paranormal are written by people
who simply do not understand the subject well
enough to know when they have it wrong.
You will also notice that we do not maintain
that EVP has evolved from Spiritualism, as it is
maintained in Wikipedia. EVP began because
anomalous voiced were found in recording media,
and the only link to Spiritualism is that it
turns out that the voices are thought to be from
discarnate entities. Some of the early efforts
to record
direct voice did produce EVP, but only
coincidently. You will also notice that, other
than a few of our article writers, we do not use
the term "spirit" to name the communicators. To
do so would be to make assumptions that should
still be open questions, and it unnecessarily
links the study of EVP to religious thought.
Finally, you are concerned that, just in case
the voices are really dead people talking, is
recording for EVP safe. The producers of White Noise did a pretty good job of making
people afraid of the dark. But in fact, the author
was using mental mediumship as a model and knew
very little about EVP. The Butler's were not
involved during the making of the movie, so
don't blame them.
One of the most common questions is a
concerns for the safety of EVP. The short answer
is that all forms of trans-etheric communication
we are aware of is safe. The only caveat we
might add is that, if you are a person who is
apt to do what a stranger tells you without a
second opinion, then you probably should not be
talking to strangers--physical or etheric. For
more information, read
A
Brief Discussion About the safety of Communicating
with the Other Side and
the two FAQs:
Is there any danger in EVP and
More about the safety of EVP.
There are a number of people in the field
calling themselves "demonologist," and we feel
they may be promoting the fear of violence as
they attempt to paint the communicators in EVP
as demons. This sort of negative view does hurt
research because it damages the credibility
of serious, well-designed research. Funding for
research is not going to be available if the
public sees our field as religious or those
who study the subject as being superstitious.
Why did
Geraldo
attack Gary Schwartz so viscously?
We do not know what is in the heart of Geraldo that
leads him to make such a one-sided attack on the
character of a well-known scientist as he did on Fox
TV. If you read Dr. Gary Schwartz's rebuttal at
http://drgaryschwartz.com/, you will see that he
plans legal action.
We know Dr. Schwartz and know him to be a very
ethical man who is a hard worker for the scientific
investigation of things paranormal. He is one of the
few academically trained researchers in the world
who are willing to risk a career to study a subject
that is so shunned by mainstream scientists. Given
the implications proof of the survival of
personality after physical death has for existing
principles of science and religious thought, it is
not surprising that a conservative TV program would
want to discredit his research.
Do not forget that we are all subject to such
attacks. It is important that we are careful about
what we believe.
What do you think
should be studied next for
EVP and has progress has
been made?
There is no realistic doubt that the voices are
real. As an electronic engineer and careful observer
of the phenomena (we routinely collect such voices)
it is clear that the voices in the recordings exist,
so I would call that a logical "given" for
consideration of other questions.
It is apparently true that the voices cannot be
accounted for as an artifact of currently understood
technology. In other words, we (the community) have
conducted experiments designed to eliminate the
possibility that the voices are caused by such
physical sources as stray radio signals, ground
antenna artifacts, unnoticed sounds occurring at the
time the recording is made, imagined voices in
otherwise unmodulated sounds and contaminated
recording media. It is possible that we have
overlooked a physical source, so I will not call
this a "given," but a well established hypothesis.
What has not been well researched is the origin of
the voices, if they originate from nonphysical
sources. (Here, I refer to "nonphysical" as
"etheric.") The working hypothesis is that the
voices are initiated by discarnate people
(predominantly "dead" people like long dead Uncle
John). For instance, voice analysis of some examples
has been nearly 95% to 98% conclusive that it is the
discarnate person speaking. In some instances,
people who may have never existed in the physical
(angelic or nature spirit) or who have evolved from
a different line of evolution (aliens both incarnate
and discarnate) may be communicating. It is
important to note that we are convinced that
nonhuman communicators exist, but any one report to
this effect should be carefully evaluated before
accepting it. For instance, the majority of a
listening panel should agree on the message content.
The problem is that we know that physically living
people are able to impress their thoughts into the
media as EVP. Experiments have been conducted to
show this and it is as we would expect from the
metaphysics. So, a major question is: can we devise
experiments that will allow us to certify that at
least some of the voices are not from our mind? We
think we have with the 4Cell EVP Demonstration and
the above mentioned voice analysis, but more work
needs to be done.
There is another influence on what we record in EVP.
Assuming that the experimenter's subconscious mind
is only occasionally the source of the message,
there is evidence that what the experimenter expects
to experience will tend to be realized by the
resulting EVP. In other words, if two experimenters
go to a haunted location and record for EVP, and one
expects a scary ghost and the other expects to learn
something new, the first will more likely record
scary EVP and the second is more likely to record
meaningful messages. Since we hypothesize that the
experimenter is the medium through which the message
must come, and therefore the source of symbols used
for the message, it is reasonable that the same
message might be delivered as a scary thing for the
first and a meaningful thing for the second.
Consequently, this apparent selection by expectation
does not require that the message originated from
the experimenter, but this is an important question
for research.
The biggest question for Humankind that might be
answered by EVP is whether or not the super psi and
the quantum-holographic models make sense. Both are
different takes on the same model, so I will
generalize by saying that many good philosophers,
and a few Eastern religions, have proposed that a
field of information permeates reality as a
non-local "memory" of everything that has ever been,
and that people are able to access this field of
information to deliver mediumistic messages. This is
the "echoes of the past" model, and if it is true,
there is no reason to think that there are etheric
entities that are sentient and self-aware, some of
which may be angelic. If it can be established that
the communicator in EVP is etheric, independent of
the experimenter and self-aware (sentient), then it
would effectively discount the super psi and
quantum-holographic models (although they may still
be true for nonsentient information). The remaining
model would be the Survival Hypothesis, which holds
that people are an etheric Self in a symbiotic
relationship with a physical body, and that when the
body dies, the Self is released into an etheric
aspect of reality. The possible validity of the
Survival Hypothesis seems to provide a foundation of
logic for the validity of dependent theories, such
as intelligent design.
Finally, we have seen that transcommunication is a
function of technology, the experimenter and the
ability of the etheric communicator. EVP is to some
extent dependent on technology. For instance, the
advent of the digital voice recorder has greatly
improved the ability of people to record EVP as
compared to the ordinary cassette recorder. We also
see that groups form on the other side to improve
communication, and groups cooperating on this side
also seem to improve communication. So yes, we will
make progress
I would like to
work in
survival research. What should I do to
begin?If you intend to work on the
question of survival of personality, if you are
in it for the long hall, then I would say that
the field needs people like you. It is not wise
to judge tomorrow by what has happened today, so
anything I can tell you should be considered
reference material but not necessarily how
things are.
The hardest part of this is learning how to
talk about it. Even the smartest person you will
ever talk to will have preconceptions and a
short attention span. The common meaning of
words is extremely important. While "telepathy"
had a more clinical sound, "reading minds" or
"communication between minds" are better
understood by the average person. Science uses
"work" in a very different sense than it is
used by the average person and few
people understand entropy. When you speak or
write about things etheric, try to write it for
the average person. Avoid coining terms or using
novel application of existing terms. Attempt to
use the same dictionary the clerk in your super
market might use.
Semantics are very important. Calling the
etheric communicator a "spirit" automatically
makes it a subject of religion. Skeptics like
you to use the same terms religions use because
they know it is easier for the public to
discount what you have to say. Be aware that
people will mix things empirically supported
with faith-based comments in the same sentence.
Be very careful to say what you can support, and
distinguish faith-based from empirically-based
comments.
Become sensitive to the influence of a
person's worldview on their perception. The
person who claims to be a skeptic is more often
a guardian of the status quo as defined by
mainstream science. Such a person can be almost
religious about such beliefs. It is common for a
mainstream scientist to go to church on Sundays,
believe in God, but the rest of the week, insist
that survival of personality after bodily death
is impossible and therefore does not
happen. Being devout, does not mean belief in
things concerned with etheric studies.
Also be aware that speaking of things etheric
as if they are true will be offensive to some
people and they may react with anger. It is
important that everyone learns about these
things, but sometimes it is important to leave
room for them to protect their worldview.
Sometimes it is best to just show, rather than
insisting that people believe. There will be
time enough for belief later.
You can see this belief in the paranormal
without believing in survival in parapsychology.
That is why I started etheric studies and wrote
that introduction at
http://etheric-studies.aaevp.com/.
Parapsychologists are important to etheric
studies, but do not make the mistake in assuming
that a parapsychologist believes in survival.
Superpsi, quantum-holographics and a host of pet
"theories of everything" are designed to explain
the observed phenomena in terms of a biological
origin of consciousness. It may turn out that
they are more true than the creationist
theories, but they also preclude an external
influence, and in my mind, that is equivalent to
believing that earth is at the center of the
universe. More likely, we will find that most of
these theories have some value and it is for us
to find ways to test them with good science.
So my point is that I agree with you in
saying that the science is there to prove the
existence of a non-physical aspect of
consciousness and an etheric aspect of reality
in which it exists. The real obstacle is that
such research is too easily discounted because
there are relatively few well-designed studies,
as compared to something like the migration of
birds. The subject also shares some terminology
with belief systems, and is automatically
considered a religious issue and not one for
science. If you have read Dean Radin's
Entangled Minds, and witnessed the
scoffing at the closure of the PEAR lab, you
will understand that very good science that does
not agree with the mainstream is simply
rejected.
It is said that the only way survival can
become mainstream is for all of the old-timers
to die off. You are probably a good illustration
of this, while I consider myself an old-timer
who has adapted some. We saw with the release of
the movie, White Noise, expanded
awareness of what EVP is, and shortly
thereafter, some of the first research grants
were issued. Probably coincidence, but we have
always felt that research money will go where
the public's interest is. It is the young people
who have the interest.
Our approach has become one of public
education and some targeted research. I will
persist in trying to get etheric studies
underway and intend to put the online listening
report in the Best Practices Development wiki in
an effort to have peer review in the public eye.
(http://etheric-studies.aaevp.com/best_practices_development/index.php?title=Main_Page)
In this way, we hope to establish a platform for
research and collaboration. You are welcome to
participate.
