the history of evp

DANNY22XX

ok so we all know the meaning of evp but i am working on a paper for our friends in the U.S.
i thought i would share with my friends here.
its still a work in progress but nearly done here is is so far

1920`s Hereward Carrington Psychic Researcher begins experimenting.
1928 Thomas Edison worked on equipment he hoped would permit communication with the dead, using a chemical apparatus with potassium permangansate.
1930`s The Scandinavian military pick up what was probably the first ever polygot messages. At the time believed to be German coded messages, which was later discounted.
1936 Attilz Von Szalay started to experiment with a Pack-Bell record-cutter and player, trying to capture paranormal voices on phonograph records.
1956 Raymond Bayless joined Attliz Von Szalay in experiments and wrote an article for the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research in 1959.
1959 Swedish film maker Friedrich Jurgensen discovered strange voices whilst our recording bird sounds.
1964 Jurgensen after 5 years of research publishes his findings in his book Roesterna Fraen Rymden (Voices from the Universe). Attliz Von Szalay gets voices of his deceased relatives on tape for the first time.
1965 Dr. Konstantin Raudive, a Latvian psychologist and philosopher, visited Juergenson, concluded that the phenomenon was genuine, and started his own experiments in Bad Krozingen, Germany.
1967 Thomas Edison spoke through West German clairvoyant Sigrun Seuterman, in trance, about his earlier efforts in 1928 to develop equipment for recording voices from the beyond. Edison also made suggestions as to how to modify TV sets and tune them to 740 megahertz to get paranormal effects. (Session recorded on tape by Paul Affolter, Liestal, Switzerland). Franz Seidi, Vienna, developed the "sychophone". Theodore Rudolph developed a goniometer for Raudive's experiments.
1968 Father Leo Schmid, Oeschgen, Switzerland, was assigned a small parish to give him time to experiment with taping voices. His book, Wen Die Toten Reden (When the Dead Speak) was published in 1976, shortly after his death. Raudive published his book Unhoerbares Wird Hoerbar (The Inaudible Becomes Audible), based on 72,000 voices he recorded.
1970 Scott Rogo and Raymond Bayless publish 'Phone Calls From The Dead'. Raymond Cass begins experimenting.
1971 Colin Smythe, Ltd. England, published explained English translations of Raudive's book: Breakthrough, an Amazing Experiment in Electronic Communication with the Dead. Marcello Bacci and co-workers in Grosseto, Italy, made weekly contact with 'spirit' communicators, which still continued in 1988. William Adams Welch publishes his findings 'Talks With The Dead'. Paul Jones, George W Meek and Hans Heckman, Americans, opened a laboratory. First serious research to create a two-way voice communication system far more sophisticated than the equipment used in EVP approach.
1972 Gilbert Bonner, a dedicated researcher who amassed a huge collection of voices during his lifetime, begins experimenting. Peter Bander, England, wrote Carry on Talking, published in US as Voices From the Tapes
1973 Josephand Michael Lamoreaux, Washington State, had success with recording paranormal voices after reading Raudive's book.
1975 Formation of V.T.F German research group. William Addams Welch, Hollywood script writer and playwright, authored Talks With the Dead.
1978 William O'Neil working for George Meek, using a modified side-band radio, had brief, but evidential contact with an American medical doctor said to have died five years earlier.
1981 Manfred Boden has unsolicited contact with communicators of non-human evolution via telephone and computer.
1982 George Meek made a trip around the world to distribute tape recordings of 16 excerpts of communications between William O'Neil and an American scientist who died 14 years earlier. He also distributed a 100-page technical report giving wiring diagrams, photos, technical data and guidelines for research by others. Hans Otto Koenig, West Germany, develops sophisticated electronic equipment, using extremely low beat frequency oscillators, ultra-violet and infra-red lights, etc. Sarah Estep begins the American Association of EVP (AA-EVP)
1984 Kenneth Webster, England, receives (via several different computers) 250 communications from a person who lived in the 16th century. Most print-outs are in English text consistent with speech at that point in history, and personal details fully supported by library research. Communications often concurrent with poltergeist-type phenomena. Webster writes book, The Vertical Plane, with extensive photo documentation in 1989.
1985 Klaus Schreiber, West Germany, with technical assistance from Martin Wenzel, begins to get images of dead persons on TV picture tubes, using opto-electronic feedback systems. There is positive identification in many cases by accompanying audio communications, including audio-video contact with Schreiber's two deceased wives. This work is the subject of a documentary TV film and a book by Rainer Hobbe of Radio Luxembourg.
1986 Jules and Maggie Harsh-Fischbach, Luxembourg, develop and operate two electronic systems superior to that of any of the EVP equipment up to this time.
1987 The C.E.T.L group formed, Luxembourg.
1989 Samuel Alsop publishes his book Whispers of Immortality.
1995 INIT formed (International Network for Instrumental Transcommunication, ITC)
2003 Scottish researcher Alexander MacRae made a number of attempts to capture EVP in a specially designed labratory belonging to the Institute of Noetic Science, Petaluma, California. The laboratory was described as being "double-screened"; Shielded against electromagnetic radiation; to prevent interference from radio transmissions or near by electronic devices, and insulated against sound; to prevent contamination of recordings by external noise sources. Over the course of the experiment, MacRae reported capturing a number of anomalies which were subsequently isolated and analyzed. Based on this analysis, and the level of screening against outside interference, MacRae concluded that the anomalies represented distinct speech from a source that could not be explained through conventional means.
if there is anything i left out please share,
STONER !!!!! WERE ARE YOU

???

Em... you know that Edison thing is totally bogus right?

http://skepdic.com/evp.html

El_mariachi

DANNY22XX wrote: »

1928 Thomas Edison worked on equipment he hoped would permit communication with the dead, using a chemical apparatus with potassium permangansate.

This is blatantly not true.
this idea comes from an interviewer from Scientific American asked Thomas Edison about the possibility of contacting the dead. Edison, a man of no strong religious views, said that nobody knows whether “our personalities pass on to another existence or sphere” but

it is possible to construct an apparatus which will be so delicate that if there are personalities in another existence or sphere who wish to get in touch with us in this existence or sphere, this apparatus will at least give them a better opportunity to express themselves than the tilting tables and raps and ouija boards and mediums and the other crude methods now purported to be the only means of communication. (Clark 1997: 235)

There is no evidence, however, that Edison ever designed or tried to construct such a device. And he probably did not foresee spirits communicating with our tape recorders and television sets.

http://skepdic.com/evp.html

Funny how you ignore the main stream explanation of Evp.

And of course you realize that real scientific paper (hell even liberal arts papers) need references. You know just to be sure you're not making stuff up.

DANNY22XX

t is not generally known that in the 1920s Thomas Edison tried to invent a machine that would communicate with the dead. Thinking this was possible, he wrote: "If our personality survives, then it is strictly logical or scientific to assume that it retains memory, intellect, other faculties, and knowledge that we acquire on this Earth. Therefore … if we can evolve an instrument so delicate as to be affected by our personality as it survives in the next life, such an instrument, when made available, ought to record something."

Edison never succeeded with the invention, obviously, but it seems he did believe that it might be possible to capture disembodied voices with a machine.

El_mariachi

DANNY22XX wrote: »

t is not generally known that in the 1920s Thomas Edison tried to invent a machine that would communicate with the dead. Thinking this was possible, he wrote: "If our personality survives, then it is strictly logical or scientific to assume that it retains memory, intellect, other faculties, and knowledge that we acquire on this Earth. Therefore … if we can evolve an instrument so delicate as to be affected by our personality as it survives in the next life, such an instrument, when made available, ought to record something."

Edison never succeeded with the invention, obviously, but it seems he did believe that it might be possible to capture disembodied voices with a machine.

Yea gonna have to call bull**** on this.
He might have believed in ghosts and what not but there is no evidence he tried to build a machine to talk to them.
Please show your references.

Besides every know Edison was a player hater.
Tesla boy gangsta 4 life.

DANNY22XX

El_mariachi wrote: »

Yea gonna have to call bull**** on this.
He might have believed in ghosts and what not but there is no evidence he tried to build a machine to talk to them.
Please show your references.

Besides every know Edison was a player hater.
Tesla boy gangsta 4 life.

http://www.googobits.com/articles/p0-703-speaking-with-the-spirits-evp-explained.html

monkeyfudge

Homer on Eidson:
And then he worked on a machine to communicate with the dead. Kind of a scary telephone, I guess. Or maybe he planned to just stick his head under the ground and yell.

El_mariachi

DANNY22XX wrote: »

http://www.googobits.com/articles/p0-703-speaking-with-the-spirits-evp-explained.html

Thats hardly proof.
Thats some random person on the internet (with no credentials) agreeing with you. Probably where you got the idea.
Any patents or plans for the machine any photos of edison with it or of the machine itself. Any creditable sources (autobiographies and the like) that show anything other than that one quote?

DANNY22XX

as i said its a work in progress,,,
but i will take all the refrences i can,,,
here is another from AA EVP.
http://www.aaevp.com/faq/faq_evpitc_history.html#Was_Thomas_Edison_a_Pioneer_of_EVP_and_ITC

DANNY22XX

El_mariachi wrote: »

Thats hardly proof.
Thats some random person on the internet (with no credentials) agreeing with you. Probably where you got the idea.
Any patents or plans for the machine any photos of edison with it or of the machine itself. Any creditable sources (autobiographies and the like) that show anything other than that one quote?

AND YOUR CREDENTIALS ARE?

El_mariachi

DANNY22XX wrote: »

as i said its a work in progress,,,
but i will take all the refrences i can,,,
here is another from AA EVP.
http://www.aaevp.com/faq/faq_evpitc_history.html#Was_Thomas_Edison_a_Pioneer_of_EVP_and_ITC

Dude form your own link.

We do not consider Edison a pioneer of EVP. Someone on the Internet said he was responsible for the first EVP device and everyone is parroting him. In fact, we have not found any evidence that he has done anything more than speculate about the possibility of communicating across the veil in his old age. There is a distant possibility that he had included some speculation about what a device might look like in his later day philosophical musing. The people running his foundation denied having any such document. People have tried to build a device based on rumored design but it reportedly did not work.

Not even many other evp believers believe in the Edison story.

My credentials are being able to tell actual proof from random junk on the net.
CAPITALS DON'T MAKE A BETTER POINT.

DANNY22XX

El_mariachi wrote: »

Dude form your own link.

Not even many other evp believers believe in the Edison story.

Read the reply,,,,,A WORK IN PROGRESSTHATS WHY I HAVE POSTED THIS TO GET A LITTLE MORE FACTS,,,,AND YOUR CREDENTIALS ARE

Undergod

So you post it "to get a little more [sic] facts" and get mad when people correct the information you have?

You look for facts and refuse to accept it when your information is corrected.

El_mariachi

DANNY22XX wrote: »

Read the reply,,,,,A WORK IN PROGRESSTHATS WHY I HAVE POSTED THIS TO GET A LITTLE MORE FACTS,,,,AND YOUR CREDENTIALS ARE

Well now you know that the Edison thing is mostly bunk.

What does it matter about my credentials?
Do I need a degree or a PHD to use simple logic and a bit of skeptism?
I defintely need some decent credentials if i was to publish a proper paper or have someone believe my wild claims about a famous inventor.

DANNY22XX

Undergod wrote: »

So you post it "to get a little more [sic] facts" and get mad when people correct the information you have?

You look for facts and refuse to accept it when your information is corrected.

NO NOT AT ALL,,,JUST WANT IT TO BE RIGHT THATS WHY I ASKED FOR ADVICE AND HELP ,,,,TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE HERE CAN ADD,,,,I LISTEN TO THE SKEPTIC AND THE BELIVERS,,,THATS THE INFO I HAVE AND I NEED MORE SO ALL POST ARE GREATLY RECEIVED;)

DANNY22XX

Thats hardly proof.
Thats some random person on the internet (with no credentials)

your words not mine

El_mariachi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Science_and_other_uses
It's your burden to prove that Edison designed this machine not for me to prove that he didn't. (in this argument mind, not for all time).
You have not shown any proof. Therefore it is safe to assume that the machine does not exist and is more likely that it is a internet rumor nothing more.

DANNY22XX

more bits i have found out,,,,



I note with interest the Kenneth Webster one in 1984. I'm positive that feature on the ITV show Strange, But True? If I remember correctly, these alleged messages appeared on his Sinclair ZX Spectrum home computer "without anyone seeing them being typed". I believe the language used was analysed at the time and it wasn't quite right (the Ye Olde English). I'm sure I heard later that the whole thing proved to be a hoax.

I read in a book sometime ago where it was claimed that a German sound engineer was supposed to have recorded the voice of Hitler begging for forgiveness from his victims. This apparently took place in the 1960's. The book claimed that the voice was later identified by experts as that of Hilter. I'll need to try to find out more on that particular claim...
from WOSPR SCOTLAND,,,
ANY LINKS ABOUT THIS?

DANNY22XX

El_mariachi wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Science_and_other_uses
It's your burden to prove that Edison designed this machine not for me to prove that he didn't. (in this argument mind, not for all time).
You have not shown any proof. Therefore it is safe to assume that the machine does not exist and is more likely that it is a internet rumor nothing more.

ty el as i said its a work in progress

DublinWriter

DANNY22XX wrote: »

ty el as i said its a work in progress

I'd forget about the Edison angle. I think the real turning point was Raudive's work. I'm lucky enough to own a first edition of 'Breakthrough'.

DANNY22XX

DublinWriter wrote: »

I'd forget about the Edison angle. I think the real turning point was Raudive's work. I'm lucky enough to own a first edition of 'Breakthrough'.

thank you dublin writer;)

???

From the Wikipedia on Raudive:

Raudive delineated a number of characteristics of the voices, (as laid out in Breakthrough):

1. "The voice entities speak very rapidly, in a mixture of languages, sometimes as many as five or six in one sentence."
2. "They speak in a definite rhythm, which seems forced on them."
3. "The rhythmic mode imposes a shortened, telegram-style phrase or sentence."
4. Probably because of this, "… grammatical rules are frequently abandoned and neologisms abound."

Breaking it down...

1. If you can't hear anything said, it was spoken in a different language so you wouldn't understand it or it was spoken too rapidly for you to understand. Also, when you die you become fluent in many languages.;)

2. Has nothing to do with wavelengths at all...

3. If it doesn't make sense it doesn't matter.

4. You lose the ability to make sense and you make up new words when you die.


Now is it just me or do those four rules sound an awful lot like a description of aural paredolia?

El_mariachi

??? wrote: »

From the Wikipedia on Raudive:



Breaking it down...

1. If you can't hear anything said, it was spoken in a different language so you wouldn't understand it or it was spoken too rapidly for you to understand. Also, when you die you become fluent in many languages.;)

2. Has nothing to do with wavelengths at all...

3. If it doesn't make sense it doesn't matter.

4. You lose the ability to make sense and you make up new words when you die.


Now is it just me or do those four rules sound an awful lot like a description of aural paredolia?

Dude ssshhh. It a legitimate science;)

degrassinoel

its kind of hard to take any of your sceptisism seriously here guys as you obviously have no constructive interest in any of the topics made in this section of the forums.
would ye not be better off discussing this in the "skeptics corner" and let danny and co have their say on the subject without the need to constantly defend their posts.

i mean seriously, if you dont believe in any paranormal activity what in the name of creation are you even posting here for besides aggro?

life cant be that boring.

???

degrassinoel wrote: »

life cant be that boring.

Mate when it's a choice between posting on this board or spending another fecking second studying...

Also in our little corner we'd be preaching to the choir! Out here we can look at the arguments put up and debate them. Look at the mind and the paranormal thread, that was a very good debate for the most part.

Also if someone is going to post something so blatantly false that is slanderous to one of the great scientists I think it's a little fair that we jump in.

El_mariachi

degrassinoel wrote: »

its kind of hard to take any of your sceptisism seriously here guys as you obviously have no constructive interest in any of the topics made in this section of the forums.
would ye not be better off discussing this in the "skeptics corner" and let danny and co have their say on the subject without the need to constantly defend their posts.

i mean seriously, if you dont believe in any paranormal activity what in the name of creation are you even posting here for besides aggro?

life cant be that boring.

First off if i was going to submit a paper or a eassy or whatever then asked for ideas and criticisms i would fully expect someone to point out if i had said something that wasn't true (i.e. Edisons Deathphone.)
Secondly they wouldn't have to defend their posts all the time if they where based on logic and good common sense in the first place.
I post here because I enjoy good rational debate and skeptical evaluation is a passion of mine.
So rather than crying that we're being mean perhaps you should try your hand at rationally refuting our points like an adult.


Also @ ???
I believe I had already stated Edison be hatin', Tesla boy gangsta 4 life foo'.

degrassinoel

I'm not a believer in most of the stuff that gets posted here, and to me some of it is laughable yes, and some other bits and pieces have certain values which have elements of interest to me, i dont post here a lot as i have very little to offer the community,
but..

when i see two sceptical and regular posters/debunkers ripping apart some guys effort to give informal information regarding a particular subjects timeline, it comes across as more like bullying or browbeating.

Fair enough with points that can be utterly disproved or misinformation regarding timelines or events already noted in history, but come on guys.. ye may as well be namecalling here by doing what you're doing, and you're both smart enough people to know that too.

degrassinoel

El_mariachi wrote: »

So rather than crying that we're being mean perhaps you should try your hand at rationally refuting our points like an adult.

lol i'm not crying nor am i insinuating you are being mean, the very notion of your rebuttal to me, not even anyone else in this thread proves my point and negates your own.

seriously man, the forums are a great way to vent your frustrations on others, and thats blatently what you are doing, at least ??? has the aptitude to hide it eloquently.

knird evol

I'm nowhere near as funny as I think I am so I'm going to take a break from posting for a week or so.

El_mariachi

making a lot of assumuptions about me there.
Have you seen my logic thread?
1. Ad hominem An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.

So any attempt to debate my on topic points or what?

stevenmu

El_mariachi wrote: »

Dude ssshhh. It a legitimate science;)

El_mariachi banned.

And I'll point out for everyone else that this is NOT a "science only" forum, there is no "burden of proof" required to present an idea for discussion.

???

That a permanent banning?

monkeyfudge

??? wrote: »

From the Wikipedia on Raudive:

Breaking it down...

1. If you can't hear anything said, it was spoken in a different language so you wouldn't understand it or it was spoken too rapidly for you to understand. Also, when you die you become fluent in many languages.;)

2. Has nothing to do with wavelengths at all...

3. If it doesn't make sense it doesn't matter.

4. You lose the ability to make sense and you make up new words when you die.

Now is it just me or do those four rules sound an awful lot like a description of aural paredolia?

You don't seem to be capable of reading here. He says these are characteristics that he has come across. Where are you getting rules from?

degrassinoel is completely correct. A healthily scepticism is important for the forum, but an interest is equally important. Really look at a poster like Zillah and how he puts his points across. You're just coming across as incredibly childish... have you ever attempted to record EVP yourself for instance? It doesn't take much effort.

I certainly don't believe in ghosts by any means... what I know about the human brain means that I can't accept that there is anything resembling a soul that can carry on after you're dead. But it doesn't mean I'm going to completely ignore the fact that there is unexplained phenomenon out there, and these things deserve some study.

???

monkeyfudge wrote: »

You don't seem to be capable of reading here. He says these are characteristics that he has come across. Where are you getting rules from?

Supposedly they are the characteristics of an EVP as defined in his book. I copied straight off his wikipedia article.

degrassinoel is completely correct. A healthily scepticism is important for the forum, but an interest is equally important. Really look at a poster like Zillah and how he puts his points across. You're just coming across as incredibly childish... have you ever attempted to record EVP yourself for instance? It doesn't take much effort.

No I haven't. Recording static is not something I'd consider fun! I've listen to enopugh supposed EVP and half the time you can't hear a thing, the others it sounds like complete gobledegook and a paradolia.

I certainly don't believe in ghosts by any means... what I know about the human brain means that I can't accept that there is anything resembling a soul that can carry on after you're dead.

So good so far.

But it doesn't mean I'm going to completely ignore the fact that there is unexplained phenomenon out there, and these things deserve some study.

http://skepdic.com/evp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paredolia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voice_phenomenon#Explanations_based_on_psychology_and_perception

monkeyfudge

??? wrote: »

Supposedly they are the characteristics of an EVP as defined in his book. I copied straight off his wikipedia article.

Yes. It's says characteristics. Not rules.... you called them rules, you're twisting facts in some sort failed attempt at derisive humour.

???

A characteristic is

a distinguishing feature of a person or thing

I never mentioned the word rule. In my original post they were called characteristics. Go back and check. Also for the purposes they are the exact same thing. One of the characteristics of a fission reaction is energy is given off!!!

Stoner

looks like a decent job Danny, well done

you could Paddy the MOFO up by mentioning Yeats, didn't Dr. Konstantin Raudive claim to have recorded him? I thought I read that somewhere, if it's true it would be good to mention

DANNY22XX

Stoner wrote: »

looks like a decent job Danny, well done

you could Paddy the MOFO up by mentioning Yeats, didn't Dr. Konstantin Raudive claim to have recorded him? I thought I read that somewhere, if it's true it would be good to mention

thanks stoner, ill check it out bud,