Here is a report of something that we got on camcorder last weekend.
The first EVP event happened on mine and mama's first vigil. While sitting in a hut with two other people I heard a noise that was, to me, a definte loud breath as if exhaling heavily. I asked if anyone had heard a noise and they had all heard creaks now and then but no-one described the sound I had heard..I copied it and still none of them stated they had heard it. Deciding it was my imagination I put it to the back of my mind. However, on listening to my footage there it is clear as day and very loud. Now, it could be said that I myself did it..but if this is the case how come the others didn't hear it..at the volume it is it should have been audible to everyone..and..even more strange it is not on Mama's footage..even though she was sitting right next to me with her camcorder.
As if this wasn't enough..a little later myself and Mama were in another hut..again with another two people. At the time we heard nothing out of the ordinary...however..we were watching the footage..and..plain as day on Mama's tape we hear a very clear man's voice saying something we couldn't make out. A few very interesting things though a) We didn't hear it at the time. b) Me and Mama were standing next to eachother and the "voice " is louder than ours and seemingly straight into the camcorder..yet no-one was near us. c) My camcorder was near by..near enough to pick up the sound of me and Mama, and yet it didn't pic up the voice (which again was louder on Mama's tape than our voices were. d) There were NO MEN in the hut with us.
and..the very very weird thing..
We played the tape for Trudy to listen to over the phone. It's not ideal but it is that clear she heard it. We had not told her what to listen to but she said it was a man's voice straight away. She couldn't make out what it said either but it was a definate word starting with a N and ending in a F. She spoke to her husband and tried to copy the word..he immediatly came up with the word Neuf .from the word she had copied. He explained that this was French for nine and as in that area they would have spoken Gaelic this is a word that could well have been used. In the seconds before the "voice" I had asked "what time is it" and immediatly we get Neuf....Neuf is French for nine..and what time was it..9 o'clock !! Bare in mind Trudy nor her husband knew what I had asked..or the time when it happened..
We are currently trying to get the footage onto a format so we can post it. Until that time we are open for suggestions on how either of these occurances can be explained.
In what way do you mean Jon ? It was captured on camcorder which shows who was there..with another camcorder to show that no-one else was in the building..if it had been only on a MP3 player I would agree..nothing at all could be proven.. To me it shows that sometimes sounds can be caught on tape that appear to have no logical explanation and no source that can be found. With the sounds in this case being actual words it makes it all the more interesting. Bumps, bangs "footsteps" etc can sound impressive..however, there are way too many possible explanations and a great deal of difficulty ruling everything out..but, with actual voices and "words" surely we cannot blame the weather, draughts, buildings cooling down etc. I am not saying it proves spirit by the way.
Last Edit: Jul 11, 2006 18:21:42 GMT by quackersgpi
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jul 11, 2006 19:38:26 GMT
Ok, present all the evidence, camcorder footage, mp3 footage, photographs that prove there was no one else there etc. Proof that the tapes used were brand new, proof that there are no radio antennas nearby, proof that no TV's present were on, proof that ALL mobile phones were turned off.
And then I will take a look and let you know what i think.
The above measures are what i would expect from even a basic group, so I expect an even higher level from a professional outfit like yours.
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
We have footage from two camcorders..one of which has the voice on it..one that doesn't. However the one that doesn't has our voices on it. Can I point out that this was something we captured when helping out another group..they now have the footage but as soon as we get it back, or they get it on line..we'll let you know. How can we prove the tapes were new ? They were new as we never re-use tapes because of the risk of some stuff overlapping others.
We had no two way radios with us and there are no radio attennas in the area..also there were no televisions. For one thing the hut we were in has no electricity. Also, we do not carry mobile phones with us, whether they be off or on. If it had come by one of these methods even, it would have been on both camcorders..but as I say, they are not present anyway.
So Jon, are you willing to admit that if my version of the event is true (which it is, but I know you'll want proof of..), you would consider this to be a paranormal or at least very "strange" occurance ?
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jul 12, 2006 11:03:38 GMT
I will look at all of the evidence and if the evidence is conclusive then i willa ccept that it cannot be explained by normal means. However if the controls in place were not complete and flaws are found, then it will give you something to look at next time
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
It is difficult for people to comment until they've at least seen or heard the footage but I think you need to be careful before jumping to the paranormal conclusion.
For example, if the word "neuf" is really the word that is there (it's easy to hear words when we're told beforehand what they are) you may have shoehorned that into what you want to see.
If a French speaker would have been likely to have been there in the past and would use neuf instead of nine, why was he answering a question that you asked in English in French?
If he could understand the question in English, surely he would have answered in English. If he couldn't understand English he couldn't have answered the question; even in French.
I would suggest that this is analysed in a sound lab somewhere. It may just be a noise fluctuation that sounds like something meaningful due to pareidolia.
Bits of this have appeared on our forum, with reference to how we can improve the way we do things on our end, so I thought it would be worth copying across my answer!
Ok, present all the evidence, camcorder footage, mp3 footage, photographs that prove there was no one else there etc.
I'm always saying we should be panning the entire room to show that we are the only ones there. There is never going to be enough proof to convice someone who is determined not to believe you at your word however, so just do the best we can! Multiple cameras (preferably on the same cctv system so recording can be symaltaneous(sp)) would show that there is no-one hiding behind the other cameras.
Proof that the tapes used were brand new
This is good practice - and we do generally stick to it anyway. However how are we supposed to 'prove' this? There has to be a certain level of trust in place for any scientific experiment - you are not for example asked to 'prove' that you used clean glassware!
proof that there are no radio antennas nearby
If you can prove to me that these interfeer in any way whatsoever then I will start looking, otherwise i'll not be too bothered about them. Camcorders and other recording devices do not have recption abilities, so transmissions should not affect them in any way.
proof that no TV's present were on
Well thats a bit fcuking obvious!
proof that ALL mobile phones were turned off
We do this anyway! Again very hard to be proven, whats to say that they weren't turned on again once the camera was elsewhere!
As an additional point however I wouldn't accept mp3 recordings myself if people were asking me to examine evidence! They are far too compressed and this can introduce 'artifacts' into the recording, and generally distorts the sound anyway.
Does anyone know how compressed the sounds recorded by normal camcorders are? My guess is that there is a reasonable level of pre-recording processing and compression
These are all good points to build upon, but it needs to be born in mind that we do not do this with the aim of faking evidence (although i'm aware it does happen!) and as such a certain level of trust should be forthcoming!
The search for proof works both ways - to prove that the paranormal is in existance, and also to prove that it isn't! I would be very happy if I could find sufficient evidence of non-paranormal causes to the phenomenon observed.
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jul 19, 2006 9:37:41 GMT
Ok, present all the evidence, camcorder footage, mp3 footage, photographs that prove there was no one else there etc.
I'm always saying we should be panning the entire room to show that we are the only ones there. There is never going to be enough proof to convice someone who is determined not to believe you at your word however, so just do the best we can! Multiple cameras (preferably on the same cctv system so recording can be symaltaneous(sp)) would show that there is no-one hiding behind the other cameras.
Good idea, and it would be a start. I would suggest a constant camera filming your guys from start to finish, no edits
Proof that the tapes used were brand new
This is good practice - and we do generally stick to it anyway. However how are we supposed to 'prove' this?
Video footage of you opening sealed tapes, putting them into cameras, and again a constant feed of you guys after that. If the camera footage is none stop it would help eliminate any fakery.
There has to be a certain level of trust in place for any scientific experiment - you are not for example asked to 'prove' that you used clean glassware!
But you guys are not doing scientific experiments, so lets not state you are. You are doing investigations, you are not using control locations, situations etc.
These suggestions are to just make anything you do find a bit more interesting, but it is far from making it a scientific experiment.
proof that there are no radio antennas nearby
If you can prove to me that these interfeer in any way whatsoever then I will start looking, otherwise i'll not be too bothered about them. Camcorders and other recording devices do not have recption abilities, so transmissions should not affect them in any way.
Fair comment
proof that no TV's present were on
Well thats a bit fcuking obvious!
But do you have proof this is the case? A walk around, filming that all TVs are disconnected from the plug would be nice
proof that ALL mobile phones were turned off
We do this anyway! Again very hard to be proven, whats to say that they weren't turned on again once the camera was elsewhere!
All mobile phones should be switched off, and collected, and locked away. Sorry to say but you can never trust people to leave them turned off.
As an additional point however I wouldn't accept mp3 recordings myself if people were asking me to examine evidence! They are far too compressed and this can introduce 'artifacts' into the recording, and generally distorts the sound anyway.
Agreed. Personally i wouldnt accept any audio only recording
Does anyone know how compressed the sounds recorded by normal camcorders are? My guess is that there is a reasonable level of pre-recording processing and compression
You shouldnt be using DV cameras anyway, if you are this is your biggets mistake. You should be using the old fashioned Tape cameras.
These are all good points to build upon, but it needs to be born in mind that we do not do this with the aim of faking evidence (although i'm aware it does happen!) and as such a certain level of trust should be forthcoming!
Trust means nothing if you expect people to take your evidence as of interest. I do not trust you or your group, you may, but the general public do not. And if you expect to be taken seriously, you must eliminate anything and everything you can which may usually need trust
The search for proof works both ways - to prove that the paranormal is in existance, and also to prove that it isn't! I would be very happy if I could find sufficient evidence of non-paranormal causes to the phenomenon observed.
Debunking should always be the priority as opposed to proving it
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
It is difficult to prove that tapes haven't been used before, but, as has been said, people should be filmed opening them up and putting them in..if they are changed then the time will show a jump in filming. People tend to only film in actual vigils but I think we need to film the set up and everything else as well..also the MH style of filming is useless..i.e team in a room holding all camcorders with brilliant views of nostrils but nothing else around the room..filming in this way proves nothing.
Johnny London..I take all your views on board and can I say I am not jumping to a paranormal conclusion..what I am saying is it appears to be a strange occurance and one that we need to study closely..the issue of the answer being in French is a good point I guess one view could be (should it be spirit), that it was that spirits way of telling us something about himself and making us really sit up and listen.
Video footage of you opening sealed tapes, putting them into cameras using the tapes that we haven't opened yet, lol!!! Not taking the pee, just tickled my somewhat weird sense of humor!
I would suggest a constant camera filming your guys from start to finish, no edits
While this is a top idea, that I whole heartedly agree with it is impractical - tapes (regardless of format) will not last long enough. Our investigations can last for 12hrs in theory, but i reality nearer 7-8hrs. I do set-up a live feed from my camcorder to a DVD recorder (using it like a cctv camera) to get 8hrs+ of recording time, but the set-up is somewhat less than portable!
But you guys are not doing scientific experiments, so lets not state you are. You are doing investigations, you are not using control locations, situations etc.
Thats fair, and i can't argue with it! However we do our best to minimalise the variables that we can.
All mobile phones should be switched off, and collected, and locked away. Sorry to say but you can never trust people to leave them turned off.
Have you tried to prise some people away from their phones, lol! I think that this is an approach that we can immediately take on board and start using.
You shouldnt be using DV cameras anyway, if you are this is your biggets mistake. You should be using the old fashioned Tape cameras
Can you elaborate on this and the reasoning behind it please? I'm just genuinely interested
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jul 19, 2006 13:49:52 GMT
I would suggest a constant camera filming your guys from start to finish, no edits
While this is a top idea, that I whole heartedly agree with it is impractical - tapes (regardless of format) will not last long enough. Our investigations can last for 12hrs in theory, but i reality nearer 7-8hrs. I do set-up a live feed from my camcorder to a DVD recorder (using it like a cctv camera) to get 8hrs+ of recording time, but the set-up is somewhat less than portable!
If you want the group to be as professional as possible, then you need to do this. An easy way would be to buy a PVR, and plug in your camera to it. Even a DVD recorder would do the job. You basically need a constant feed one way or another, as for the problem of tape/space running out, well thats why you have 2 or 3! When one is about to run out, you start the next one, you can film yourself swapping the tapes etc so you cover any gaps in time.
You have to remember that even though this stuff seems like a waste, and a pointless exercise, it will be priceless if you ever get anthing of real interest, because then you will have the backup evidence to answer any questions with.
Right now you dont have that which means that anything you say or show will be open to interpretation.
All mobile phones should be switched off, and collected, and locked away. Sorry to say but you can never trust people to leave them turned off.
Have you tried to prise some people away from their phones, lol! I think that this is an approach that we can immediately take on board and start using.
Glad to hear you will be taking it on board. If people are genuinely serious about the investigation then there is no need for mobile phones of any kind. and this includes fancy PDAs too
You shouldnt be using DV cameras anyway, if you are this is your biggets mistake. You should be using the old fashioned Tape cameras
Can you elaborate on this and the reasoning behind it please? I'm just genuinely interested
Digital cameras in my opinion are useless. Whether normal cameras or camcorders.
You want to be recording events as realistically as they happen. But anything that is digital can pixelise, camera flaws are more previlant in digital cameras.
And lets not foret the fact that digital cameras can be interfered with much more easy than old fashioned cameras.
On your digital cameras do you use brand new memory cards each time? Of course not.
Where as with old tape style camcorders and film driven cameras, everything you do can be examined for interference.
When you have a negative or original tape recording this is much more likely to be accepted as a real representation of what happened.
This is very much my own opinion.
Things are recorded onto film as they are, as they are exposed. Where as digital pictures/films are not created in this way, instead the camera records what it sees and then copies it digitally onto the media, this media is compressed, and moved about when put on a PC.
I dont want to see this, i want to see what the camera saw, and not what the computer in the camera creates.
Do you understand my thinking?
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
I understand perfectly Jon. If something isn't shown as it actually was then it is not true evidence and also there is more room for doubt. I don't understand why people change photographs to try to make things clearer..if things weren't clear at the time then changing them gives a false impression. Also, the more technology you use the more you are open to people doubting how genuine your work is.
We only use camcorders with tapes for the reasons you have suggested and to be honest I think the day of the digital stills camera on investigations is nearly over..far to many gliches have been found and it has been proven how easy it is to falsify stuff. Occassionally you come up with the odd interesting picture but they are open to interpretation and doubt..and quite frankly impossible to prove. That isn't to say those pictures shouldn't be shown..then it is up to the individual to decide what they make of it..but I don't think serious paranormal groups can expect people to fall down at their feet and take what they do seriously based on this type of evidence. Instead of moving on by finding more complex technology maybe we should be looking at moving on by going back to the old methods of recording...and just using those older methods in a more productive manner..
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jul 19, 2006 15:12:54 GMT
quackersgpi said:
We only use camcorders with tapes for the reasons you have suggested and to be honest I think the day of the digital stills camera on investigations is nearly over..far to many gliches have been found and it has been proven how easy it is to falsify stuff. Occassionally you come up with the odd interesting picture but they are open to interpretation and doubt..and quite frankly impossible to prove. That isn't to say those pictures shouldn't be shown..then it is up to the individual to decide what they make of it..but I don't think serious paranormal groups can expect people to fall down at their feet and take what they do seriously based on this type of evidence. Instead of moving on by finding more complex technology maybe we should be looking at moving on by going back to the old methods of recording...and just using those older methods in a more productive manner..
I agree whole heartedly with you.
Sometimes we do need to go back to truly go forwards, nd you explained it perfectly.
I would say the main reason people use digital cameras/camcorder etc is that they are very cheap to run, and the results are instant
But sometimes to get truly good evidence you haveto be patient and also spend more money.
When I explain to people that a flash should always be seperate to the camera they think i am mad.
Digital cameras have been the cause of "orbs" becoming as popular as they are
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
It has to say something that orbs seem to have only become a common phenomenon since digital cameras became more generally used..but, cost can be an issue and time also can be a factor. I guess it boils down to what you want. In the early days of a group it is all about trial and error and learning from your successes and your mistakes..if you then really want to progress you have to find a way of funding those changes and making the time..it all takes time though.
The other mistake I think people make though is to focus on orbs..how much other evidence is missed on photographs and footage because if it isn't a little round light people don't notice it.
Post by RidingWithTheAngels on Jul 20, 2006 0:02:34 GMT
I totally agree regarding digital cams and the orb phenomena. This is not falsification but mis interpretation.
We should lock away all mobile phones - sounds great in theory but where do you suggest we do this. Do all 13th Cent castles have a readily accessable wall safe?
We could tape the tapes being undone on new tapes that we have taped being undone perhaps:) hey we could even tape these tapes being ondone - anyone know how we undo the first set?
Put a camera filming behind the camera thats filming the behind of the camera? Shall we do this with new tapes or the ones we have taped that we tape being opened on tape?
Whilst this may seem very sarcastic ( and yes I am) but there is an issue here of where we actually start. I am not a scientist ( I leave that to Paddy) however none of us have the money to fork out for this that and everything else. We do however make the best of what we have and try to show this in a format that would stand the scrutiny of the recording process but we have to draw the line somewhere and the endurance of the footage is a prime example. Jon you say change the tapes however if we are in more than one place at once its a bit tricky to evidence this as it shows (what has already been highlighted) as a change in times. Unless we disconnect one camera and move it purely to film the change of tapes in another and then move it back but then there will be a break in that camera's footage of the area it was supposed to be in.
These are sound ideas Jon - but practically?
Oh and to a certain extent i was taking the piss re the mobiles
I think that MiniDV Camcorders are all that are within the price reach of the majority of us! These can be hooked up to virtually any recording device you choose, but at the end of the day you still reliant on the digital sensor. I have an old camcorder which is analogue lying around at home (giant 80's brick that weighs a couple of tons!), and this can be hooked up to a recorder in the same way (i believe?) - would this be of a more suitable nature?
With reference to digital cameras - again you get what you pay for! Once you go over 11mp then you are actually capturing more information than a 35mm film. And on any digital camera with this high a resolution then you can capture your images in RAW format, which makes them completely un-processed by the imaging subsystems of the camera. To dismiss digital cameras is, imho, remiss. You just have to be very careful as to what you use! Again this kind of technology while easily available is beyond most of our wallets. I have recently been looking into this question of digital/film with reference to a project at work, and we will be spending £4-5k on just the camera and lense, but it will be digital and superior to film.
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jul 20, 2006 8:56:33 GMT
We should lock away all mobile phones - sounds great in theory but where do you suggest we do this. Do all 13th Cent castles have a readily accessable wall safe?
Would it be so difficult to buy a £20 safe from B&Q and bring it with you?
We could tape the tapes being undone on new tapes that we have taped being undone perhaps:) hey we could even tape these tapes being ondone - anyone know how we undo the first set?
Being pedantic is not an attractive trait. You use one camera sepcifically for recording the controls like opening new tapes etc.
Whilst this may seem very sarcastic ( and yes I am) but there is an issue here of where we actually start. I am not a scientist ( I leave that to Paddy) however none of us have the money to fork out for this that and everything else.
Then you are plainly wasting your time then. If you are not prepared to take things seriously then you should be doing something else.
These are sound ideas Jon - but practically?
You want to be taken seriously? Then you make the effort, because if you dont, every time you get anything you think interesting, it will instantly be worthless, because of YOUR lack of effort. Then you are truly wasting your money
I know you are just joking about, but it is this joking about and dismissing of good advice that leaves you and your group open to ridicule.
I was asked for advice and my opinion.
I give it, if you are just gonna take the piss then that just reflects badly onto you and your group.
If people couldn't be arsed like you to put in such controls then we would never get anywhere would we.
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jul 20, 2006 9:01:22 GMT
I think that MiniDV Camcorders are all that are within the price reach of the majority of us!
And that is a shame i admit. But if you are really interested in doing proper and respectful investigations then in my opinion you have to make the effort, Unles syou are doing it for purely social reasons, and if so i will shut up. But if you are serious investigators, then you need to at least impliment some of the things i suggested
I have an old camcorder which is analogue lying around at home (giant 80's brick that weighs a couple of tons!), and this can be hooked up to a recorder in the same way (i believe?) - would this be of a more suitable nature?
Yes Yes Yes!!! That would be much much better, and if you got something on that camera, i would be much more inclined to take it seriously.
With reference to digital cameras - again you get what you pay for! Once you go over 11mp then you are actually capturing more information than a 35mm film.
But it is still digital, a simple 35mm film is a much better recording tool in my opinion.
Not only is the end result much harder to manipulate and fake, you will always have the original negatives which can be investigated and analysed if you get something really really good.
To dismiss digital cameras is, imho, remiss.
As a social tool they are great and cheap to use. but as an investigatory tool they are flawed.
You just have to be very careful as to what you use! Again this kind of technology while easily available is beyond most of our wallets. I have recently been looking into this question of digital/film with reference to a project at work, and we will be spending £4-5k on just the camera and lense, but it will be digital and superior to film.
But if you are serious about your investigations then in my opinion film is better.
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.