|
|
Post by killa on Apr 10, 2007 19:54:21 GMT
www.audiomartini.com (video) what do u all think.??,sounds like white noise to me.If you go to this weeks shows he interviews the bloke that makes the claim its a phone that contacts the dead.!!.Its a good interview as he asks him really sceptical questions trying to catch him out.!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Apr 10, 2007 21:55:31 GMT
Aaahhh How is Rick these days!
We used to show his show on BP, last I heard Rick is all famous now and on national radio!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Audiomartini on Apr 11, 2007 1:23:43 GMT
I ain't that famous, Mate. National radio sure hasn't made me rich but I am alive and well and missing my old Brit buddies. Still fighting the good fight, folks? Rick www.audiomartini.com |
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Apr 11, 2007 6:03:22 GMT
It sounds to me like random electrical interference, or some type of extremely vocoded speech but very indistinct. Infact it sounds like sparky the magical piano only fainter.
|
|
|
|
Post by benvolio on Apr 11, 2007 7:47:48 GMT
Infact it sounds like sparky the magical piano only fainter. What! You mean he's dead!  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Apr 11, 2007 8:10:04 GMT
I ain't that famous, Mate. National radio sure hasn't made me rich but I am alive and well and missing my old Brit buddies. Still fighting the good fight, folks? Rick www.audiomartini.comHey Rick, where did you come from!! Yeah we are still fighting the good fight, but it is a very slow fight as you can imagine. Feel free to plug your show on here anytime you want |
|
|
|
Post by bone on Apr 11, 2007 8:54:48 GMT
How could anyone in their right mind take anything seriously connected to a website that spouts nonsense about the finding of Noahs Ark...  |
|
|
|
Post by killa on Apr 11, 2007 10:09:11 GMT
wow audiomartini answered my post.!!!.He is a s*it hot interviewer and was definatly not convinced by the telephone to the dead..Hey admin you should stick the vid on your main webb page so everyone can check it out...I thought it was really interesting and im sure the bp fans will love it.....!
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Apr 11, 2007 10:37:02 GMT
well besides the Thomas Edison machine, there have been several attempts made to communicate with the dead via machinery. SPIRICOM is another type of machine developed by George Meek and Bill O Neil in 1979.
Franksbox however is a random voltage generator which is used to tune an AM receiver module rapidly. The noise from the tuner is amplified and then fed to a resonance chamber (echobox)
I am not an acoustic engineer or even an electrical engineer, but this method seems to me (at least through laymans eyes) to be a bit of a strange way to design an audio reciever.
Random fluctuating voltages are generated which in turn manipulate an AM reciever (randomly of course) the randomly generated hisses pops whistles and static are then fed to a resonance chamber where echo and more distortion is added and then that audio feed is listened to.
Now call me old fashioned but isnt the idea behind a communication device to have clear precise useful communication? How exactly does making randomly generated sounds and tones then making it a dirtier signal actually produce anything but more convoluted noise?
Thats like taking a perfectly good cellphone and gluing it between two hairdryers (turned on of course)and wrapping it in aluminium foil and expecting useful communication whilst listening to an incoming call.
|
|
|
|
Post by Audiomartini on Apr 11, 2007 17:27:09 GMT
"How could anyone in their right mind take anything seriously connected to a website that spouts nonsense about the finding of Noahs Ark... " Not sure how you got my espousing the validity of Noah's Ark out of that. Regards to the telephone to the dead, apparently those who have passed on are made entirely of static....Perhaps a dryer sheet might clear that up. Rick www.audiomartini.com |
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Apr 12, 2007 4:57:46 GMT
"How could anyone in their right mind take anything seriously connected to a website that spouts nonsense about the finding of Noahs Ark... " Not sure how you got my espousing the validity of Noah's Ark out of that. Regards to the telephone to the dead, apparently those who have passed on are made entirely of static....Perhaps a dryer sheet might clear that up. Rick www.audiomartini.comHa, but wouldnt the signal be weaker due to atmospheric  We could always clear that a bit by using  On a more serious note are we to believe that Ghosts/spirits are constructed from static? If the above statement is true then ghosts/spirits must also be attached to the surface of an object to even exist. Thats quite a leap of logic. |
|
|
|
Post by bone on Apr 12, 2007 10:11:55 GMT
"How could anyone in their right mind take anything seriously connected to a website that spouts nonsense about the finding of Noahs Ark... " Not sure how you got my espousing the validity of Noah's Ark out of that. Regards to the telephone to the dead, apparently those who have passed on are made entirely of static....Perhaps a dryer sheet might clear that up. Rick www.audiomartini.comAnd I quote from your website: I'm sorry I assumed you were promoting this as a serious piece of academic study? I wont even mention the "ghost phone" |
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Apr 12, 2007 10:17:56 GMT
To be fair audiomartini does ask his guests very pointed questions and asks them to confirm they believe what they espouse is true, but he is very skeptical about it all. I think the philosphy is to just lay the cards on the table and offer two opposing views to the story. That is balanced journalism (something Fox should try to emulate).
|
|
|
|
Post by bone on Apr 12, 2007 10:32:42 GMT
In my opinion sites like this do nothing at all to answer any real questions, pandering to someones pseudoscience or bizarre beliefs does nothing more than promote these silly ideas at the detriment of real scientific endeavor.
The trouble with laying your cards on the table and offering two opposing view points of these issues is that you are putting in the minds of the listeners that the ideas being discussed all have equal merit. This is one reason why a *real* scientist should never debate with the likes of creationists or Noah's Ark seekers and their ilk.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Apr 12, 2007 10:41:00 GMT
If you dont debate you cannot disprove, I think the idea is to show both sides of the coin, and let the listeners decide which side they are on. If you are likely to accept scriptural "truth" over scientific "truth" then listening to this type of program will not influence you one way or the other as your have a mindset already inplace. However hearing arguments against this might make you start to question in ways you had not considered before. Just ignoring data that does not conform to scientific understanding just leads to "conspiracy theories" and "ideas the government tried to suppress" lending weight to the more ridiculous arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by bone on Apr 12, 2007 11:12:38 GMT
But Bob, most of the ideas being discussed ( ie Noahs Ark) have already been disproved, discussing the same tired old nonsense does not progress anything and it never will.
I agree, which makes it even more odious to give this type of thing airtime again and again.
Hardly likely in respect of your previous quoted comment.
Bob if a theory doesnt stand up to scrutiny and testing then it doesnt deserve to be treated as science. Im not sure what you are trying to suggest here, are you saying that we should give equal credance to every nut job theory that doesnt go through the peer review process ( because you can bet your life that none of these "theories" ever do) simply to avoid the possible accusation of conspiracy or information supression?
|
|
|
|
Post by Audiomartini on Apr 12, 2007 11:35:38 GMT
So the way to refute nonsense is to ignore it so that it goes away? Well, then consider yourself ingnored, Bone. Rick www.audiomartini.com |
|
|
|
Post by bone on Apr 12, 2007 11:55:24 GMT
...Or you could just create a website that promotes the same tired new age dogma and pseudoscience and try and pass it off as valid scientific investigation... Oh dear how will I cope with such rejection. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Apr 12, 2007 12:07:40 GMT
As far as I am aware, noahs ark (although highly unlikely and impossible in its literal sense) has never been beyond a shadow of a doubt disproved. You have to consider the context in which this type of interview is taken, In America right now there is a HUGE right wing christian movement that would like to take America into the future believing in the LITERAL word of the bible. I cannot stress how inherently dangerous that ideology would be for furture generations. It is irrelevant if this subject has been discussed before because this is an ongoing war of ideology and if it is not discussed openly it will find a way of sneaking into classrooms at a later date.
I actually enjoyed listening to the arguments for and against, Rik effectively destroyed the credibility of the interviewee by sheer weight of logic and reasoning. The interviewee certainly believed in the literal bible stories, maybe Riks questioning will have a later impact upon him if he so chooses to question his own long held beliefs.
People when faced with new information stand a better chance of critically reviewing their previous ideology, than if they are simply labled as insane and ignored. They then feel persecuted and they become cynical to any possible change. Why do you think Jon has medium moderators? Balance of course.
I agree that if a theory is unsound it should gain less respect than a well thought out theory, but Riks show wasnt about the science behind the claim, or even treating it as science, it was about presenting the Ark guys findings and exposing those findings to Riks own questions so the listeners could decide for themselves.
I do think we should investigate any claim made of a paranormal nature, even if only to discount it. That is the nature of skepticism, and James Randi himself accepts ALL challengers of a paranormal nature for his organisations prize. If you just label someone as mad then I guarantee you they will start blathering about "how the man keeps them down" instead of just running off tail between legs. Ideas should be exposed to the light of reason and logic instead of ignored even if they have been covered before. There are always people who have not heard the argument before, or exposed to its ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by bone on Apr 12, 2007 13:57:09 GMT
I hope you can see the contradiction in this statement Bob.
I'm sure you are aware that the burden of proof lies with the believer, science on many levels has disproved the literal account of "The Flood", not that it really had to seeing as a reasonably well educated 10 year old could disprove this by sheer logic alone.
And these nut jobs have been defeated in court again and again, I have total confidence that the majority of Americans will continue to reject these backward ideas, hopefully the rest of them will wake up too.
I can't personally comment on Rik's' shows, I have never heard any of them. I will still however stand by my view that this type of publicity simply gives more power to these idiots, even if Rik is the symbol of logic and reasoning himself! Why not report or deal with *real* scientists doing *real* and very important work instead? Why not give them the valuable air time?
Bob, the information you are talking about has already been published and available for these people to review! It doesn't make the slightest difference , its *highly* unlikely that they will ever change their views, how can anybody seriously believe that a radio show or website is going to change the view of somebody who , despite all of the available evidence, still thinks that the earth is 6,000 years old or Noah actually existed? All this type of publicity does is enforce the delusion.
|
|
