-Cap’n

We all have our ideas regarding the origins of paranormal phenomena. Most times, these involve the idea that someone has died and is now communicating or interacting with the world of the living in some fashion. We devise different methods for contacting these spirits in an attempt to ‘prove’ their existence, but could we be bounding down the wrong path?

Throughout the centuries, there have been a multitude of events and stories that would seem to validate the claim of non-physical entities interacting with the manifest physical world. Nearly every conceivable religion teaches what inhabitants of the ‘other side’ do, think, feel, experience, etc. However, when we attempt to place these ideas in a scientific context a conundrum appears.

In recent months, my research has shown how easily the human mind can be tricked and how often our intuitions about the inner-workings of the universe can be in error. Scientific thought has allowed us to make great strides in technology and the understanding of physical processes, both inside the body and otherwise, but it has shed little light on the strange events we call ‘paranormal’ (these events go by many names: supernatural, miracles, occult, etc.). Why is this?

Anyone who has attempted to bring traditional intuitive thought regarding the paranormal into the scientific arena has most likely met with fierce opposition. These matters are considered pseudo-science at best, and most respected scientific minds are reluctant to accept a disincarnate-spirit hypothesis. This should not be confused with pure skepticism, though. The problem arises when the claim is made that something non-physical and non-quantifiable is claimed to be the cause of events and effects in the manifest world. By adopting the spirit hypothesis, we voluntarily stop the causal chain, claiming that the true source is ultimately un-knowable.

What if we were aiming for the bullseye of the wrong target? Could it be that the answers lie within the marvel of the human mind itself? Some will be reluctant to consider this possibility, as it puts each one of us in a position of responsibility. By looking within ourselves for a causal link, we are no longer separated from these phenomena.

Many people  would probably balk at accepting such an idea. It would as first seem that this hypothesis takes the ‘magic’ out of these events, but perhaps it is just a different magic than we have previously thought. We would be remiss, I think, not to accept the possibility that the paranormal is more a part of us than we had ever imagined.

-More to come

“out there comes from in here”

Recommended reading for this show:

S.P.I.R.I.T. Investigations website

New Jersey Paranormal Resource Group website

Download audio file (13EVPPart2.mp3)

Duration: 45:05

Next Time: EVP and Audio Part 3- how to record and what to use

For this episode, we are going to look at what EVP is and talk about one recording method in particular and talk about some variations on that method.

Download audio file (12EVPPart1.mp3)

Duration: 22:02

Next time: EVP and audio, Part 2; the exotic side of EVP.

Download audio file (11Investigations102.mp3)

Send us your comments!

Thanks for taking the time.  –Cap’n

Next time: Testing, 1, 2, 3… EVP and effectively recording audio

This week begins our dive into the investigative method and how we could be doing things better.

Send us your comments!

Download audio file (10Investigation101.mp3)

Duration: 23:09 

Next week: Investigations: 102 – A new approach

 Ghost boxes… my, my, my.

–Cap’n Casper

The latest and greatest EVP craze these days is the ghost box. Reminiscent of Spiricom and the Phychophon, these devices are claimed to be a live link to the dead. Don’t get too excited just yet, it gets better. There are also some organizations selling sessions (sound familiar?) for contacting deceased relatives and other loved ones using these devices. Now, those are pretty amazing claims. I would be amazed too, if they actually produced results.

What is a ‘ghost box’?

Also called ‘Frank’s Box’, the idea was brought forth by Frank Sumption. He began constructing devices that he claimed would provide a means of communication with the dead based on a few simple ideas. His original designs utilized the AM tuning section of a car stereo as the primary reception device. The receivers operated via a VCO, or voltage controlled oscillator to tune in a particular station. A white noise generator based on the base-emitter thermal noise of a standard bipolar junction transistor (BJT) was used to provide a ‘random tuning voltage’ to the VCO. This setup caused the AM tuner to randomly tune across the AM spectrum (sounds a lot like EVP maker software). This randomized AM reception was then fed into a speaker mounted in an ‘echo chamber’ (box) along with a microphone. The microphone was of course, fed to a recorder. In principle, the thought is that the random reception of broadcast stations provides a kind of ‘raw material’ to facilitate the construction of intelligible phrases by non-physical beings.

Why not a ‘ghost box’?

While it seems a tempting setup to try, this method has some obvious drawbacks. First, I have listened to many ‘EVP samples’ recorded with methods similar to this, and they are subject to interpretation at best. I have heard (and recorded myself) much, much better samples than even those presented on Mr. Sumption’s website. All of the recordings that I have heard made with this method can be termed “un-impressive”.

Second, let’s think about the skeptics’ major beef with any EVP: electromagnetic interference, radio or otherwise. The setup of a ‘ghost box’ is the epitome of radio interference. Since it uses an AM receiver, all sorts of non-paranormal sources could be picked up such as baby monitors, cordless phones, and two-way radios just to name a few. To make matters worse, lately many have been constructing these boxes to simply sweep the AM spectrum (because that is easier to accomplish, not because it works better) even though Sumption says in his construction notes that it seems to be the ‘randomness’ of the reception that allows the device to work. At bare minimum, these devices should only be used within well-constructed Faraday cages and as far as possible from high-power broadcast AM sources, but then that would defeat the primary principle of operation… interesting.

Third, there have been hundreds of thousands of acceptable EVP samples recorded with tried-and-true methods. For many years, the setup for recording was a simple dynamic microphone and a high quality recording deck. Why not improve this method? Not only does a dynamic microphone respond to acoustic events, but also electromagnetic events as well. Since they pickup electromagnetic events via induction, they respond primarily to the magnetic portion of an EM wave. In an electromagnetic wave, the magnetic component loses amplitude much more quickly than the electrical component (a function of the inverse cube of the distance from source). This means that even electromagnetic interference at a distance of several feet will typically not be picked up at the microphone. Local disturbances however (just in case EVP is really electromagnetic in nature, which some research suggests), will be picked up within a few inches of the microphone element. So if a ‘personality’ wanted to interact with the microphone element, that task could be accomplished either acoustically or electromagnetically. Dynamic microphones also have another distinct advantage: they’re cheap. I just purchased a lot of 10 studio microphones on Ebay for a grand total of $76. I plan to construct a dynamic ‘array’, similar to the infra sound arrays used by seismologists. I will post results and details as they are available.

Finally, let’s all remember that the tendency of the human brain is to make sense of what it hears. Our brains rely on memories to process input, which is why voices can be heard to faintly appear out of static. Subconsciously we need to recognize our sensory input, and the mind is a powerful thing. Because of this, I believe it is folly to accept anything less than a class A (fully intelligible, no interpretation needed) voice. I do not analyze anything that requires straining to hear or multiple listens to decipher.

The verdict…

While an intriguing concept, we must remember that live communication with the ‘other side’ has not been accomplished since the days of Spiricom, and it now seems that that may have been a sham (more to come on this). We must continue to be vigilant in the face of those offering an easy solution without much to offer us in the way of evidence. Many investigators claim to be all about collecting hard scientific evidence, but in the end they just open their wallets wide for every roadside ‘snake oil’ stand. Fancy gadgets will not good research make. I have seen many websites touting to be the only group in the area that uses a ‘constanflabuglator’, or whatever the gadget of the week happens to be. I have also noticed that these groups have little, or nothing at all to offer in the way of data supporting any kind of theories.

If we work smart and work together we will find the answers. We are fortunate to exist in the most exciting age of discovery in human history. Let’s not squander that gift just for the sake of the ‘easy way’.

Thanks for taking the time.

-Cap’n Casper

 For instance, one may argue that voices are imprinted directly to tape (analog). In this scenario, an experiment could be devised that includes two recording devices. The first device (an analog tape recorder) could use as the input a microphone. Then, a second recording device (perhaps a digital recorder or minidisc) could be connected to the output (or monitor) of the first recorder. At the start of recording, a bell or other indicator is sounded to establish a common timebase. Then, any voices that appear on the analog recording could be cross-referenced with the digital. If it is found that the digital recording contains the same voices in the same places, one could begin to rule out the possibility of voices being imprinted directly to magnetic media (the minidisc, after all is optical).

This is just an example of how we could begin to narrow our research direction. Many other can be devised, and I most assuredly welcome your input and suggestions! I am currently working on aparatus to aid in the research of ‘natural’ EVP (that is, not ITC). Stay tuned, as I will post some details of the new equipment soon!!

Thanks for visiting,

James “Cap’n” Casper

-James Cap’n Casper Presnell ; founder, KCPR 

Ever since the term ‘orb’ was coined, their appearance in photos has caused a hotbed for debate. Also known as ‘spirit orbs’ or ‘ghost orbs’ (many other variants escape me at present) , these happy little apparitions seem to bounce around our photos at will. There are just as many viewpoints as to the origins of these strange balls of light as there are ways to analyze and name them. For those of you not familiar with ‘orbs’, the prevailing theories for and against go something like this: 

See those odd little balls? Some say they indicate a spirit’s presence in a photo. A spirit, or ‘ghost’, is said to manifest sometimes in this form. Their internal optical structure is highly scrutinized and enlarged to the extents of grain and pixilation in order to discern some telling characteristic from their anomalous form. While these two photos do not typify all of the optical manifestations of ‘orbs’, they are the most general forms of this phenomena. Some ‘orbs’ will appear to be solid, brightly lit objects and will sometimes be displaying movement of some sort. Although the visual forms of ‘orbs’ are many, I will be treating them all in the same manner. Is that Aunt Edna? No, too much hair. 

Some simply debunk ‘orbs’ as specks of dust or moisture droplets in front of the lens during flash discharge. Many an ‘orb’ photo has been slain by the pragmatic pragmatists in the mainstream (debunking) community. Maybe they had bad memories of Halloween as children. 

Whatever the case for either argument, each group clings staunchly to its own view. That having been said, let’s take a deeper look at this heated issue from somewhat of a ‘hybrid’ standpoint. Whether dust, moisture, bugs, or a ‘ghost’, we need to examine the facts behind optical phenomena such as ‘orbs’. As a photographer (shameless plug for http://presnellphoto.com ), scientist, and paranormal investigator I tend to view the issue of ‘orbs’ in what seems to be a rather unique way. While I believe in the paranormal and have many experiences to back up that belief, I cannot put any credence in ‘orb’ photos. Why? I’m glad you asked! We’ll get to the why in a few moments. First, some quick bits from my scientific toolkit and experience concerning ‘orbs’ and cameras. 

I have done several experiments regarding the causes of ‘orbs’ in photos and have tested the effects of dust and moisture at varying distances. I have also looked at the differences between film and digital, and when it comes to cameras, there seem to be two primary factors that influence the appearance (or lack of) ‘orbs’. 

First is the flash to lens-plane distance. If we take a trip back to high school physics, what can we remember about the reflective properties of light? One thing should (hopefully) come to mind: angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. Off-camera flash produces much less direct reflection, which is why professional photographers will use a flash that is separated (and usually diffused as well) from the lens plane of the camera. This type of illumination produces more subtle highlights and overall increases the tonal qualities of both light and subject. Why is this important? Once again, I’m glad you asked! 

In my experience, ‘orbs’ appear on my lower-end cameras. These units are both film and digital, are of varying ages and from different manufacturers. They do however, share two important traits (the second of which will e explored shortly). The primary linking characteristic of the cameras is a very short flash to lens-plane distance. In a couple of cases, that distance is as little as .75″. This configuration leads to harsh reflections in general, but is especially noticeable when there is any type of atmospheric contamination present. While I certainly am not suggesting that every ‘orb’ is caused by the construction of the camera (or am I?… no, really, I’m not ), I can say that I have never witnessed an ‘orb’ in a photo taken with my DSLR (Digital Single-Lens Reflex) with either on or off-camera flash. The bottom line with regards to flash to lens-plane distance is that cameras constructed with the flash placed close to the lens are subject to more direct reflections from any object within the illuminating range of the flash.

The lens system employed also has a major influence on the appearance of ‘orbs’. I have found that less expensive (and hence less complex) lens systems are much more likely to produce anomalies in photos. Fixed focus lenses are the worst culprits, with small to mid zoom point-and-shoot lenses not far behind. As you increase the effective depth of field in which a small diameter lens is expected to achieve sharp focus, a marked increase of image aberrations will follow suit. You may have noticed that in the last couple of years point-and-shoot digital cameras have trended toward larger diameter lens systems, and some have even been endowed with high quality optical components and multiple lens coatings. These features are no gimmick! A DSLR such as one that I employ uses a large diameter lens (67mm or more) and has multi-coated optics. In addition, my lenses all feature low-dispersion glass and optical image stabilization. These characteristics are all intended to decrease chromatic aberrations and to enhance overall image quality and sharpness.

Some may argue that image capture resolution has something to do with the appearance of ‘orbs’. In my experience, I have obtained the same types of phenomena with about the same frequency (usually about 40% to 60%) regardless of resolution. For example, my fixed focus 3.1MP shows ‘orbs’ just about as often as my 7.1MP small-zoom. Both employ small diameter lenses and small flash to lens-plane distances. While I could also go into the JPEG compression algorithms used by different manufacturers as well as different type of sensor chip technologies as they relate to image aberrations, I don’t feel that the discussion is necessarily warranted.  OK. What am I trying to say here? Good question! 

At the end of the day, ‘orbs’ are a waste of time for me. I have grown tired of the ‘orb’ debate and there is not any critical information conveyed by the presence of ‘orbs’. I’ve captured much more impressive and compelling images than those containing ‘orbs’, so to heck with them. I believe there are bigger paranormal fish to fry, as it were, and no matter how many photo labs determine that an ‘orb’ photo was not re-touched or tampered with, it’s still just that; an ‘orb’. 

Author’s note:

–This article is simply a description of the thought process used to arrive at my particular viewpoint. I do not wish to be attacking in sharing my opinions, and hope that I have done so in a fair and universal manner. If you disagree strongly or wish to challenge my statements, please do so as an adult. We cannot expect to get our work into mainstream science by fighting or demeaning one another. 

Thanks for taking the time to read and visit!!

-James Cap’n Casper Presnell