Visual Spectral Phenomena

[onewingedangel]

Good morning all,

I trust that you are all well ;D

I think I have come across something of interest, which has been 'discovered' by the a paranormal group.

VSP is a new breakthrough in the field of paranormal research that G.P.S Ghostfinder Paranormal Society has been developing since May 2009. G.P.S Audio Analyst Manager John West first identified this phenomenon after analysing several EVP's that were captured on recent paranormal investigations this year. It appears that EVP's are not just captured as sound waves, but also visually within the spectrum of sound. This study into what we have termed VSP is a breakthrough in the field of Para-science, and G.P.S is hard at work pioneering this research to further develop the technique and hopefully bring to light some answers to the many questions that have surrounded the technique of capturing disembodied sounds on voice recorders.

www.ghostfinder.co.uk/

Before anyone pipes up, I am not stirring trouble but I do think this needs to be discussed. I am not up on the scientific side of things and would like to see if the more educated/experienced members of this forum, have something to say about this 'break through' finding.

Do you feel this could be evidental or should it be sent off to a University of some sort to be looked into and research fully?

[Mr. Jon Donnis]

Sounds like another load of b***cks to me, something to give that group something to harp on about.

[onewingedangel]

Could you say it is Pareidolia?

[Mike]

Concidering EVP is a mark of audio pareidolia anyway, i doubt this 'new phenomena' is anything different. As i know it, GPS are pseudoscience researchers anyway.

[onewingedangel]

Can I be dappy and as work pseudoscience research is?

Sorry if I am sounding blonde, I'm not s science person :-(

[Mike]

The most basic explination of it is here, though i hate directing people to wiki! By doing a quick google you could find sites that explain it in full.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

[asdfg]

Oct 21, 2009 10:56:24 GMT onewingedangel said:

Could you say it is Pareidolia?

I haven't had a look at the website or the claims but before I do (and I probably won't) that was the first thing that came to my mind - it's just another way of finding patterns in random noise. i.e. pareidolia.

I guess stuff like this makes people feel important or an expert in the field, but it will simply be a complete and utter waste of time - another red herring in the quest to prove that ghosts/spirits really exist.

[Mike]

Oct 21, 2009 13:34:17 GMT @asdfg said:

Oct 21, 2009 10:56:24 GMT onewingedangel said:

Could you say it is Pareidolia?

I haven't had a look at the website or the claims but before I do (and I probably won't) that was the first thing that came to my mind - it's just another way of finding patterns in random noise. i.e. pareidolia.

I guess stuff like this makes people feel important or an expert in the field, but it will simply be a complete and utter waste of time - another red herring in the quest to prove that ghosts/spirits really exist.

Well let's not say that they don't exist yet! They could do, but i doubt highly that they have found anything significant to research.

[asdfg]

Oct 21, 2009 13:36:36 GMT Mike said:

Well let's not say that they don't exist yet!

Why not?

Is there any evidence that they do?

I think we should take the logically correct position of assuming that ghosts/spirits are not real unless it can be proven that they are.

[Mike]

Oct 21, 2009 13:46:48 GMT @asdfg said:

Oct 21, 2009 13:36:36 GMT Mike said:

Well let's not say that they don't exist yet!

Why not?

Is there any evidence that they do?

I think we should take the logically correct position of assuming that ghosts/spirits are not real unless it can be proven that they are.

Your completely correct, you can't logically say that they exist until it has been proven otherwise. But i think it is unhealthy to dismiss the possibility of their existence out of hand purely on the basis of current lack of evidence.

Then again i am admittedly cynical about mediumship, so maybe i'm being slightly contradictory in opinions.

[asdfg]

Oct 21, 2009 14:33:25 GMT Mike said:

But i think it is unhealthy to dismiss the possibility of their existence out of hand purely on the basis of current lack of evidence.

Who dismissed the "possibility" of their existence out of hand?

If someone had done that, why would it be "unhealthy"?

As skeptics we talk about probabilities rather than possibilities as possibilities leads to absolute claims of certainty - something skeptics shouldn't do.

Whilst it's not impossible that ghosts/psi/etc. are real the probability of them being so is vanishingly small.

I know people who've been investigating hauntings etc. for 20, 30 years and more - not a single one of them has ever detected a ghost!

You tend to find that the more a serious, scientific researcher investigates hauntings the less likely they are to believe in ghosts as disembodied spirits.

[Mike]

Oct 21, 2009 15:44:29 GMT @asdfg said:

Oct 21, 2009 14:33:25 GMT Mike said:

But i think it is unhealthy to dismiss the possibility of their existence out of hand purely on the basis of current lack of evidence.

Who dismissed the "possibility" of their existence out of hand?

If someone had done that, why would it be "unhealthy"?

I think the point of my post has been misunderstood, but maybe it's because i typed the point incorrectly. Let me reform it's linguistics.

I'm not sure where i accused 'anyone' that had dismissed it out of hand but rather i was saying it as a generalization. If i was accusing anyone specifically i would have in an obvious fashion.

However i will say that 'as skeptics' it can be unhealthy. Unhealthy, meaning unhealthy to general skeptisicim and it's standpoint. As a skeptic you cannot fully discount the fact that there may be a probability of it being something else other than xenenromal or simply normal until the assessment of all of the facts and information has been sought after and dealt with rationally.

As i'm sure you know, skepticism is the standpoint of doubt until that claim can be accessed to avoid irrational conclusion. The probability of it being completely explainable is as you say the likely solution and more often than not at the result of any inquiry. I've been researching and 'investigating' for four nearly five years now and i too am yet to detect a 'ghost'.

Claims, whether they look reasonable or extremely unlikely to be true, will be doubted; however, i will not dismiss them out of hand on entering into an inquiry. This is crucial to skepticism otherwise you border on cynicism and bias, same as entering an inquiry as a believer. Yes, as stated, the likelihood of it being explainible is the most likely result, but to ignore the fact of the slight probability of it being unexplained is wrong, and is unhealthy in research.

Preaching to the choir, my apologies

[asdfg]

Oct 21, 2009 16:24:57 GMT Mike said:

Preaching to the choir, my apologies

You're preaching to the preacher! ;D

It's my self-appointed role to drumbeat what skepticism is and is not into people's skulls.

[Mike]

At my level i am simply the Verger i'm affraid!

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2009 13:34:17 GMT @asdfg said:

I guess stuff like this makes people feel important or an expert in the field, but it will simply be a complete and utter waste of time - another red herring in the quest to prove that ghosts/spirits really exist.

I had a nosey at their site and they say:

If a spirit is trying to communicate, the energy required to create a sound is far less then the energy needed to create a light wave (apparition)

A spirit may not be able to differentiate between the frequencies of light and sound an example of this is during the investigation of the Hell-Fire Caves, Ian asked 'Suki' to show herself, the recorder picked up an anomalous EVP, and the sound and subsequant image was produced in the SSA.

If spirits are manipulating the EMF field then the vibrations produced, could produce the frequencies required to create a VSP.

It all sounds rather out there to me. It's almost like a whole other bunch of pseudoscientific theories bundled into one by them, to try and sound like they know what they're on about with this new "breakthrough."

This is an example of VSP from their site and it really in barmy.

img.Report this post to Admin please.com/albums/v307/TornPicture/blargh.jpg[/img]

Also... can I just point out that they say "EMF fields"

What the bloody hell is an electromagnetic field field?!
Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid....

[asdfg]

Oct 21, 2009 21:55:23 GMT @thesecret said:

I had a nosey at their site....

Now I know why I didn't have the inclination to!!!

The trouble is now Hayley, you've stirred my curiosity and I'm just going to have to have a look.

;D ;D ;D

[Deleted]

Oops. I do apologise.

[asdfg]

The thing is with making patterns out of noise you can make just about anything you like fit.

Here's my interpretation:

[Deleted]

That's too funny. Karma'd.

[FG09]

That is hilarious Jigsaw!

I wonder why these retards make up this nonsense in the first place. Those that believe believe without the need for some kind of scientific justification in the first place and those that know science aren't fooled by the inane attempts to validate their claims with pseudo-science. So, the question is, just for whose benefit are these outlandish claims made?

Also, why would someone who dismisses the science when it is used to debunk their flawed views suddenly embrace something that is pretending to emulate the scientific method (albeit abysmally) when it is in support of their claims? Talk about double standards!