Hold on. All you’re asking is how, technologically, you can have certainty that an audio or video recording is not faked? Why didn’t you just say that? Why make it about woo?
IT.
CAN’T
BE
DONE
There are too damn many varieties of so-called “paranormal” activities, and too damn many varieties of fraud, with new versions of each popping up all the damn time. What you are asking for is the equivalent of a Universal Measuring Machine for the purpose of finding out if anything is being mismeasured.
Does it measure length, weight or size? Either help design my machine or go away!
What kind of mismeasurement? Either help design my machine or go away!
snip.
My explanation is the same as the one you just gave. The source of the sound is very likely to be one, or a combination of those factors. Now, I understand what causes it to a limited degree, but how do I repeat it for someone or make it go away? That is the real question. Perhaps always doing a dual recording with a cruddy unit and a decent one? If they are actually hearing the noise with their ears, how do I isolate the source? etc… You probably can give me advice, but If you think I’m playing you for a fool, or chasing ghosts you aren’t going to help. Most experts are like that as well for good reason.
I also don’t understand this board’s complete hostility towards altruism. I like helping people out with problems that involve amateur level science. what’s wrong with that? I find it interesting, and its more fun then sitting on my arse all day like I’ve done this morning.
Their problems could be better addressed with proper medication.
Because in woo is where you see the most fakery. There is chance that in that field of sludge there might be a tiny nugget of something new or unusual. If we outright dismiss every cryptozoological video for example, we might never discover an interesting new species or the return of one thought long gone. It turns out that mountain lions are most likely moving east a lot faster than we thought. While the official position is that they are extinct in lots of states, we are getting more and more video showing them. Those on the side of the officials cry hoax immediately. Those who took it scream just as loudly that it’s real, how do we collect evidence with a high standard of honesty? The thylacine in Tasmania is officially extinct, yet we are getting increasing reports of them. If every tape is shopped how do we separate the dreck from the gold, and related if i was going looking to hopefully make a good film, how do I prove my footage?
But it’s not going to go away, anymore than random patterns in clouds are going to go away. It can’t be repeated either. It’s a really existing random fluctuation which people can interpret as meaningful, just like a cloud can really look like Scrooge McDuck.
ETA: If you’re just asking how to prove a video/audio recording is or isn’t faked, that’s a technical question for GQ, and would probably get multiple answers from people trained in the field. However I think most ghostly phenomena are sincerely reported, and are simply the result of people’s ability to find meaning in complicated random fluctuations.
I would have no objection to helping someone determine the cause of unidentified noises. Is this something that happens to you a lot? That is, so frequently that you need advice on how to handle it?
I don’t think it’s ever happened to me, at least beyond a “what the hell is that noise?” query, where it’s quickly determined to be the ice maker or some kids playing outside.
And the point is get your ass out there and contribute by using scientific method to debunk stuff, go and be serious,. and investigate.
DON"T GO AND TELL THEM THEY ARE JUST PITCHING WOO BULLSHIT AND GHOSTS DONT EXIST. PROVE IT BY SHOWING THEM WHAT REAL WORLD SCIENTIFIC ACTUALITY CAUSED IT.
If all you do is sit on your ass and tell people it is just woo, without helping them to understand why it is not paranormal you are contributing to the whole problem. Of course, you are part of the whole ‘coverup’. If you can do what we have been discussing and demonstrate repeatable that the little boy voice clearly saying “leave or I will eat your face off” is something that is natural and not caused by some paranormal entity, then there is one less piece of woo out there. If you dont, then people will point to it as proof of woo.
You’ve metioned the ghost noises ‘scaring’ people quite a few times in this thread, I’m starting to think your reason for trying to disprove ghosts is personal to you. Is that it, are you being bothered by what you hope is not a ghost?
By the way, the woos are not the vocal minority. The are the whole of people claiming anomalies are paranormal.
I doubt if shouting in large red block letters will help your case.
I have investigated. Others have investigated. We’ve come up with zip, nada. Along comes another example that looks exactly like the 10 million we have already investigated {sigh} and you think we are delinquent in not looking at it for the 10,000,0001th time?
Sure, I’ll look at it all you want. You want my expertise, money up front, dude. And in order to put up with this bullshit another time, I don’t come cheap, and I certainly won’t do it free.
Make of that what you want. It’s impossible to “put the paranormal to rest” because there will always be one dude out there saying, “You didn’t look hard enough…what about this one??” All we can do is show you the preponderance of evidence and let you draw your own conclusions.
There are too many cases to investigate all of them. It is not necessary to investaigate every garden to be sure that none of them actually have fairies at the bottom.
This is the first time I’ve said this to anyone, back away from your computer and go outside for some fresh air and perspective.
- Woo pops up faster than it can currently be investigated. Woo would continue to pop up faster than it could possibly be investigated if we used the entire budget of the United States of America for the sole purpose of investigating woo.
Diogenes the Cynic, this is the position that I’m coming from in this thread:
I don’t believe in ghosts, or indeed, anything else. I have confidence in certain theories based on their predictive power.
With Ghosts, there’s no demonstrable phenomenon, no theory and no predictions.
However, I do not agree with some of the statements upthread that it is impossible to find supporting evidence for ghosts in principle, due to the fact that they are defined to be supernatural. Lots of things have been defined to be supernatural, and then found not to be. And yeah, some of the anti-woosters comments smack of belief.
So to recap; you said “heaven” earlier, in inverted commas, and implied that the term was interchangeable with space. Now you’re clarifying that you meant “the heavens” and therefore the sky.
AFAICT this fancy footwork was just to sidestep my point: that to see something fall a couple hundred feet does not make a claim as to the actual origin of that entity.
And it does not make a claim about the rock itself being unusual either. If I saw an iPod fall to the ground, and on inspection it looks like an ordinary iPod, I’d probably assume it was an ordinary iPod that originated on Earth.
Three times ignoring it. And that analogy was directly to counter the point about only having “second-hand” evidence of the ghost versus “first-hand” evidence of the meteorite.
Any similarity to the blind watchmaker is unintentional 
Swap the iPod for something of natural origin (that is not normally found in the sky) if you prefer.
And equally, their inability to accept that so much of life is random and without a Higher Meaning.
there’s not even a definition.
Things which actually exist have been found to have natural expalantions. “Ghosts” are not things which actually exist or which can provide us with anything to examine or test. They are a hypothesis without a phenomenon, solution without a riddle, an answer without a question.
I was using the language that they would have used, and those words are all interchanagable.
Yes it does. They saw it fall from the sky.
That’s all well and good to posit as an explanation, but explanations are neither here nor there. The observed phenomenon is still an iPod falling from the sky. Don’t confuse the claimed observations with the hypothetical explanations.
Neither repersents evidence, only claims.
Perhaps that’s because, due to personality type, you may be a person who isn’t comfortable with things unless they are either black or white. But rarely this is true.
I will admit to some distain for people (and I’m not so sure that you are one) who demand absolute certainty. Because we are always in flux. Even scientific principles that once appeared written in stone are called into question and theory is revised as times/situations change.
Absolutely nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Truth written in stone? It once was. Physicists are currently discussing the possibility that our truth may be too small.
So I think it’s good to keep the door of possibility open just a tad. Even to the point of uncertainty. The world doesn’t shatter if humans don’t have all the correct answers.
That doesn’t mean hope; it means anticipation. Readiness for the next surprise the universe reveals to us.
And that doesn’t mean that being skeptical of one possibilty means absolute endorsement of it’s opposite. That’s black and white thinking.
My sole respect for superstition lies in how it affects society. And it does - both in positive ways, such as a child’s enjoyment of folk tales, and negative ways, as in when a black and white thinker demands others accept his superstitions.
No.
No.
A thousand times no.
Scientific principles change for one thing and one thing only-new evidence. Changing attitudes do not change them and neither do the times. Science may be in flux, but the changes are logical and directed by fact, not fancy.
That’s an awfully naive set of assumptions. What was it someone once said-a theory is only accepted once the old guard who denied it die off, replaced by the young guns?