LOU GENTILE, EVP Applicant

[petre]

A rare chance indeed, the opportunity to examine and comment on an application before Kramer sends an official reply!

Not only that, but the applicant seems to be acutely aware of the scrutiny under which a parnormal claim is examined and has provided a very detailed protocol.

Even given the opportunity to freely examine his recorders, I would expect that Kramer would request that the recorders be freshly purchased (as a joint first step of the test) or provided by an independant third party.

Let me now wish the applicant good luck, and hope that a final protocol can be reached quickly...before I put my cynical hat on.

In the end, I suspect Kramer will have to insist on some point (perhaps the very one I suggested above) and the discussion will degenerate from there.

[CptColumbo]

I question who will interpret what will be considered a sucessful response?

Could it be played out the way he described, recording what the responces are, and then after the whole test is over an independant third party listen for responses on indicated places on the tape (some false, some where there should be one). This third person should never be in contact with the applicant, and only when both parties agree on what the response is should it be considered sucessful. This would prevent the applicant from forming words from independent random sounds, and influencing the third party by telling them what they should hear.

[petre]

I question who will interpret what will be considered a sucessful response?

Could it be played out the way he described, recording what the responces are, and then after the whole test is over an independant third party listen for responses on indicated places on the tape (some false, some where there should be one). This third person should never be in contact with the applicant, and only when both parties agree on what the response is should it be considered sucessful. This would prevent the applicant from forming words from independent random sounds, and influencing the third party by telling them what they should hear.

He seemed to be receptive to (even anticpating) the idea of an objective third party to judge whether or not there were English responses.

I find the use of digital recording interesting, most claimants use less reliable media like magnetic tape and chemical photo to capture evidence of (spirits?).

He's not even claiming that the responses will 'be correct' or even 'make sense' (and indeed, there's not any specific need for that to demonstrate something paranormal). I keep picturing a 'hit':

"Sprit, what is 2 + 2?"

(faint voice)"...green..."

Perhaps only idiots can communicate from the afterlife? :)

[webfusion]

"I question who will interpret what will be considered a sucessful response?" --- CptColumbo

There is a Challenge rule that says there needs to be a demonstration which does not require any "judging" (aka ' interpretation ').

[CptColumbo]

"I question who will interpret what will be considered a sucessful response?" --- CptColumbo

There is a Challenge rule that says there needs to be a demonstration which does not require any "judging" (aka ' interpretation ').

So this could be rejected, unless an agreement could be made on what exactly is a proper response?

[strathmeyer]

So this could be rejected, unless an agreement could be made on what exactly is a proper response?

Why can't KRAMER just go straight to asking for affidavits so that the guy can just disappear and we can all forget that this ever happened?

[CptColumbo]

Why can't KRAMER just go straight to asking for affidavits so that the guy can just disappear and we can all forget that this ever happened?

I just think it would be a shame to not have an EVP tested. Hopefully, they can come up with a protocol that will allow them to remove as much subjectivity as possible.

[Thing]

Why can't KRAMER just go straight to asking for affidavits so that the guy can just disappear and we can all forget that this ever happened?

I'm guessing he's prepared for that. If you look at the website for his radio show www [dot] lougentile [dot] com you can see photos of his original application being notarized. Given the testimonials quoted on the website I'm sure he could find a few fans to sign affidavits.

The crunch question will be "how will the success of the test be judged".

[vbloke]

It may be possible to hold any test of this in a "quiet room", one that is shielded from outside EM signals. That should at least eliminate the possibility of accidental signals being picked up on the recorder.

It would also need to be carefully set up in order to avoid the possibility of the applicant whispering the answers under his breath. Perhaps fitting him with a throat microphone to pick up everything he says may suffice.

The recorder should also be checked for any previous recordings that could "leak" into the recordings done during the tests. If it is a digital recorder, this could be done by formatting the media several times before and in between the tests.

[Jackalgirl]

...after the whole test is over an independant third party listen for responses on indicated places on the tape (some false, some where there should be one). This third person should never be in contact with the applicant, and only when both parties agree on what the response is should it be considered sucessful. This would prevent the applicant from forming words from independent random sounds, and influencing the third party by telling them what they should hear.

I agree with this. And I'd also stipulate that, if possible, the person listening to the "answers" not be told what the question is or that there even /was/ a question. That way, the pattern-seeky nature of the listener can at least be damped down a bit.

By the way, and this is a total segue, I found the following interesting statement in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon that I wanted to share with everyone:"I don't like the word 'addict' because it has terrible connotations," Root says one day, as they are sunning themselves on the afterdeck. "Instead of slapping a label on you, the Germans would describe you as 'Morphiumsuechtig'. The verb suchen means to seek. So that might be translated, loosely, as 'morphium seeky' or even more loosely as 'morphium seeking'. I prefer 'seeky' because it means that you have an inclination to seek morphium."It struck me that this also describes humans' pattern-seeking nature pretty well -- that we are pattern-seeky, because it's a trait that helps us learn absurdly quickly and therefore is an excellent survival trait. Just thought I'd throw that in there. : )

-- Jackalgirl

[Mojo]

It may be possible to hold any test of this in a "quiet room", one that is shielded from outside EM signals. That should at least eliminate the possibility of accidental signals being picked up on the recorder.

It would also need to be carefully set up in order to avoid the possibility of the applicant whispering the answers under his breath. Perhaps fitting him with a throat microphone to pick up everything he says may suffice.

The recorder should also be checked for any previous recordings that could "leak" into the recordings done during the tests. If it is a digital recorder, this could be done by formatting the media several times before and in between the tests.In this context, it's interesting that he stipulates that "The list of questions will be compiled and agreed upon in advance by both parties." Wouldn't this leave the possibility open that he simply prepared the answers in advance of the session and somehow arranged for them to get them picked up on the recorder?

[gavqt]

From the application:

Due to the fact that the intelligence of the entities is unknown, these question's cannot include complex scientific or mathematical subjects

I wonder if this means you can't ask the entities anything that Lou himself doesn't know about?

[Soapy Sam]

You can't preset the questions either, as it gives an opportunity to prerecord answers.
I was at a session of attempted EVP recording last year. What is very telling is the attitude of the listeners- some imagine they hear words where others hear only noise, but if one person says he heard "cheese" and the tape is replayed, others will agree it does sound a bit like "cheese." By the fourth playing, some people will tell you the kind of cheese.
This is not cheating. It's just that pareidolia works for sound as well as sight. People are very, very good at extracting meaning from noise- and if it isn't there, they imagine it.

[kedo1981]

NEWS THAT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD
I can't wait

[valis]

I would be anxious to see this tested. I agree that people find patterns where there are none and that EVPs are most likely nonsense but....

They seem like something that lend themselves to being definitivly tested, more so than most paranormal claims, and dangit they do sound like voices sometimes.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Maybe it could be done like this:

Both parties agree upon 20 questions. Each question will have a distinct answer and none of the answers will be identical to the other answers. He suggested simple addition problems and I think this would be good.

Someone (call him the code man) will prepare (ahead of time) a code word for each question and record this on a sheet. So for example he would record that the question 1+1 will be referred to as "dog".

The code man will be sent out of the room each time a recording is made. 20 separate recordings are made of the "answers", each of them on a separate piece of media (cassette or whatever, I’m not an audio guy). After each "answer" is recorded, the code man will enter the room, remove the media from the recorder and leave the room with it. In a separate room he will write the code word on the media.

After the 20 answers have been recorded they will be given back to the claimant and he will listen to them and determine which question was asked to get the recording he is listening too. He will then write the question he thinks was asked on the media. When this is finished the code word and question written on each media will be compared against the master list.

Get enough of them right and he wins the money.

LLH

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Using my previous example, but this time:

Instead of asking an addition question, the claimant could be blind folded and then handed a sign with a number written on it. He asks the "spirits" to say the number on the sign.

This would remove the possibility of the claimant making some kind of noise during the recording of the "answer" to identify it later.

LLH

[chipotle]

Good LLH. This eliminates the need to check Lou for hidden speakers, or call the recorder manufacturer, or have a judge listen to the tape to discern answers. Lou can be the judge the recordings himself. If he worried that the spirits can't read, then stick to questions about the contents of a box that Lou can't see, such as "how many carnations are in the box", and "what color are they".

[Plasmadog]

I would also hope to see the protocol stipulate that multiple recording devices be used. Let him use his old trusty device, but also use a brand new one too.

[strathmeyer]

Given the testimonials quoted on the website I'm sure he could find a few fans to sign affidavits.

Yes, but how many fans do you think he has that are 'professional', or even moderately intelligent?

[Belz...]

I love it when someone refers to himself in the third person.

[patchbunny]

The code man will be sent out of the room each time a recording is made. 20 separate recordings are made of the "answers", each of them on a separate piece of media (cassette or whatever, I’m not an audio guy). After each "answer" is recorded, the code man will enter the room, remove the media from the recorder and leave the room with it. In a separate room he will write the code word on the media.
I wouldn't have him enter the room to collect the tape. I'd have it passed through a double door (akin to those used when you submit a urine specimen), so there's no contact at all between the two and no signals can be transferred.

A problem with having the claimant judge what is being said on the tape, though, is his transmitting sounds to it to he can clue in to what answer is being sought (*bump*pause*bump* is green, *bump*pause*pause*bump* is four, etc).

[LordoftheLeftHand]

A problem with having the claimant judge what is being said on the tape, though, is his transmitting sounds to it to he can clue in to what answer is being sought (*bump*pause*bump* is green, *bump*pause*pause*bump* is four, etc).

That is why you don't let him know the question that is being asked (properly blindfolded and being handed a sign or something similar). If he makes a noise during the first "answer" then later he can identify that recording as the first answer session, but he still won't know the question (kind of like a weird version of jeopardy!). Unless the spirits actually answer the questions.

LLH

[petre]

I love it when someone refers to himself in the third person.

I was going to comment, but it is a legal document of sorts, and avoiding undefined pronouns does help with clarity.

[Ducky]

I think KRAMER shoudl require it the test take place in the NSA building, so as to take place in a mesh shielded enclosure to filter out all radio waves, and further, require the power sources for all recorders be properly grounded and isolated.

That should be fun.

[IXP]

I think KRAMER shoudl require it the test take place in the NSA building, so as to take place in a mesh shielded enclosure to filter out all radio waves, and further, require the power sources for all recorders be properly grounded and isolated.

That should be fun.
I think we should require all applicants to be properly grounded. Whoops, sorry, that will never happen.

IXP

[Mendeli]

So what's this all about then, a radio show host applying for the challenge? I think I've heard about mr. Gentile previously when reading bad astronomy pages, I think Phil has been featured in that show, or was it c2c, not sure, maybe both.

Anyways, do you think this will ever proceed to testing stage? I mean, if he takes the test and fails, it kind of might damage the show!

[Gr8wight]

So what's this all about then, a radio show host applying for the challenge? I think I've heard about mr. Gentile previously when reading bad astronomy pages, I think Phil has been featured in that show, or was it c2c, not sure, maybe both.

Anyways, do you think this will ever proceed to testing stage? I mean, if he takes the test and fails, it kind of might damage the show!

I believe you are correct. This will devolve into another Paul Carey situation, and Mr. Gentile will spend the rest of his life telling people how Randi was afraid to test him.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Would it work if you put the recorder in a faraday cage and a sound-proof room? That might eliminate all potential sources of fakery or interferance.

[chipotle]

LordofTheLeftHand has already proposed a way to make all the faraday cage, x-ray, sound-proof, Panasonic engineer stuff unneeded.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

How would you protect the test against this guy throwing his voice? Like a ventriloquist.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Apparantly, these are the kind of EVPs that this guy claims to be able to produce.
http://horrorchannel.com/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=218&page=1

[LordoftheLeftHand]

How would you protect the test against this guy throwing his voice? Like a ventriloquist.

The idea is to make it where he does not know the answer to the question he is asking. If this is the case he could make all the noise he wanted but it won't help him identify the answer.

LLH

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Whenever I hear EVP (especially ones with descriptions of what is "said"): I listen to it all the way through without reading the description or caption, try to figure out what I think was said (usually nothing), then read the description or caption (my reaction is usually "WHAT???"), then listen to it again.
I have yet to hear what they think was said on the first listen, but often hear it on the second listen. This is how you can judge EVPs for yourself. It's just auditory pareidolia. Try it out with this guy's EVPs. They are nothing special.

[skooob]

IMO, the "voices" Lou is hearing is simply an artifact of how his recorder works. Notice that he is pretty specific about the model that he requires.

Apparently, the Panasonic RR-DR60 uses CELP (Code Excited Linear Prediction). CELP is a fairly common standard for speech coding, used by e.g. GSM (and probably other digital cell-phone standards), Speex (the speech codec), and other systems that need to store digital speech efficiently.

While I don't know all the details of how CELP works, it basically does something like this: When the audio is recorded, the input signal is divided into short segments (frames). For each frame, the encoder tries to recreate the sound wave of the frame using a synthesizer. The encoder outputs the set of synthesizer parameters that produce a synthesized sound that best matches the original sound. These synthesizer parameters are what is stored in the memory of the digital recorder. When the recorded speech is played back, the stored synthesizer parameters are used to synthesize sound, which hopefully will be resonably similar to the input.

The advantage of this method is that it makes it possible to reproduce intelligible speech at a very low bitrate. Also, since the coder usually is tuned to human speech, it can actually make the speech come out clearer and filter out background noise. That's why digital cell phones often can work resonably well in noisy environments.

One downside is that while the output might be intelligible, it can sound synthetic, and the voice might sound different from the original. Listen to the clips on the page CACTUSJACK linked. Lou's voice sounds almost like a synthesized voice (which it kind of is).

Also, if you try to record something other than human speech, it will likely be horribly mangled. The encoder will try to find the best match possible, and since it's only equiped to reliably reproduce human speech it's pretty likely that the output will sound a lot like human speech, no matter what the input sounds like.

Googling RR-DR60 and EVP suggests that that specific model is the tool of choice for EVPers. Probably because of it's ability to turn any noise into something vaguely human sounding.

[Peachy]

My first thought about this was how strange it is to require a low-grade, low-quality recorder to achieve these effects when it is obviously preferable to get a clearer recording using high tech, high quality recorders. Why are the effects not found with a high quality recorder?

Maybe the test would be to record the same sound on two devices at once? One of his recorders, as well as a high end recording device.

[Ducky]

My first thought about this was how strange it is to require a low-grade, low-quality recorder to achieve these effects when it is obviously preferable to get a clearer recording using high tech, high quality recorders. Why are the effects not found with a high quality recorder?

Maybe the test would be to record the same sound on two devices at once? One of his recorders, as well as a high end recording device.


Quite simply, the high quality stuff is better engineered against faulty grounding, cross modulation etc...

I pointed that out to an EVP believer once and they had the asenine response that this means cheaper equipment is easier for the spirit to manipulate. So apparently ghosts are not only afflicted with laryngitis (since the recordings are usually faint) they're not very good at getting their message across...

I am happy to offer up properly engineered high quality equipment that is properly grounded and shielded to record next to the crap recorder in this test.

Of course, I still insist both be inside a copper mesh enclosure so as to shield from radio waves...

[Psiload]

My first thought about this was how strange it is to require a low-grade, low-quality recorder to achieve these effects when it is obviously preferable to get a clearer recording using high tech, high quality recorders. Why are the effects not found with a high quality recorder?

Maybe the test would be to record the same sound on two devices at once? One of his recorders, as well as a high end recording device. It's the same for spotting UFOs...

Cheap, available-to-the-consumer video cameras, preferably ones without any sort of video stabilization cababilities, are the tool of choice for UFO spotters. The big, expensive and complex telescopes used by professional astronomers are absolutely useless for spotting the UFOs.

It's all about picking the right tool for the wrong job... or the wrong tool for the right job, as the case may be.

[Ducky]

It's the same for spotting UFOs...

Cheap, available-to-the-consumer video cameras, preferably ones without any sort of video stabilization cababilities, are the tool of choice for UFO spotters. The big, expensive and complex telescopes used by professional astronomers are absolutely useless for spotting the UFOs.

It's all about picking the right tool for the wrong job... or the wrong tool for the right job, as the case may be.

When you factor in other aspects of physics, such as cross modulation of radio stations or faulty ground loops in equipment, you have a lot of people thinking they are listening to ghosts when in fact it is nothing more than a controlled misuse of electronics.

Source. (http://www.skepdic.com/evp.html)

[DevilsAdvocate]

This is a tough one to test. I assume the "responses" will not be loud clear voice, but something faint. So the test of success will require some judgment. But with recordings, espescially bad ones, it is easy to hear voices and words when your task is to listen for them--I hear a hiss, "I think I heard "six"! Because the tet would require judges, there would need to be a control test to determine whether the test results are significant.

If you had a recording studio available, this wouldn't be much trouble. Otherwise, if the applicant accepts having the questions recorded and then played, then it would not be too difficult.

Whatever the protocol, the applicant cannot be in the recording room when the "responses" are recorded, and the judgment of the results will have to be compared to a control recording to determine statistical variance. This is going to be tricky unless you get a recording studio where you can control communication from one room to another, start and stop recording, and replicate the recording exactly for a control test, and get a number of "judges" to get statistically significant results.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

If the voices could be translated to the same words by several people without having a translation suggested to them, then that might rule out auditory pareidolia. The key is blind independant verification.

[DevilsAdvocate]

If the voices could be translated to the same words by several people without having a translation suggested to them, then that might rule out auditory pareidolia. The key is blind independant verification.Not good enough. There has to be a control recording.

At some point in the recording there may be a "hiss" sound. So if 10 out of 10 people asked to listen to the recording and write down all English words that they hear all write down "six", would that proof that there was a voice?

No. It wouldn't mean anything. How do you control for that?

You have to have a control recording that could potentially have the same "hiss" sound and potentially have the same recordings of "six".

The test recording would have to score significantly better than the control recording.

[Tirdun]

Well here's my 2 cents worth for a format.

1- Setup requires two shielded sound rooms, one with a microphone, the other with a recording device.
2- The claimant sits in the first room with a judge, who will have control of the microphone, which will broadcast into the adjacent room when activated.
3- The judge will activate the microphone and signal the claimant, who will ask any question s/he wishes. This is played into the room with the recorder and noted for time.
4- The microphone is shut off and the recorder continues for a set period of time.
5- Repeat steps 3+4 a number of times.
6- Judging is done by changes in sound level on the recording that occur after the microphone has been shut off. Any increase of predermined decible level is considered a hit.

I think this would eliminate the option of cheating, decent sound equipment + shielding would remove random noise and the required change in decibles for a hit would eliminate any argument about what was said.

[Hellbound]

An interesting addition to that protocol, Tirdun, would be to use three rooms. THe third room would hold a recording device identical to the one in the second, but would not have any sound broadcast into it. Then, one could look for differences between the two recordings, or even have the applicant decide which recorder contains the answers to his questions. All properly blinded, of course.

[Hitch]

This is a tough one to test. I assume the "responses" will not be loud clear voice, but something faint. So the test of success will require some judgment. But with recordings, espescially bad ones, it is easy to hear voices and words when your task is to listen for them--I hear a hiss, "I think I heard "six"! Because the tet would require judges, there would need to be a control test to determine whether the test results are significant.

If you had a recording studio available, this wouldn't be much trouble. Otherwise, if the applicant accepts having the questions recorded and then played, then it would not be too difficult.

Whatever the protocol, the applicant cannot be in the recording room when the "responses" are recorded, and the judgment of the results will have to be compared to a control recording to determine statistical variance. This is going to be tricky unless you get a recording studio where you can control communication from one room to another, start and stop recording, and replicate the recording exactly for a control test, and get a number of "judges" to get statistically significant results.


On the page CACTUSJACKmankin linked to, near the bottom, there's a set of recordings:
Once we were all positive we heard the name Matthew (we didn't hear Jennifer until later playback), we all asked the same question again -- "Is Matthew your name?" -- We got back several responses of "No".

Fifth Contact

Fifth Contact: slowed down

Fifth Contact: "No" response
The static they claim is "no" sounds as much like "yes" as "no" to me. That's going to be an inherent problem with judging the results of any test of this.

That whole "judging" bit.

[Hellbound]

Exactly, Hitch, which is why I think we need multiple recordings, and the applicant must pick the correct one (i.e.-the one with his answers) from among a group of empty recorders.

[Orb]

IMO, the "voices" Lou is hearing is simply an artifact of how his recorder works. Notice that he is pretty specific about the model that he requires.

Apparently, the Panasonic RR-DR60 uses CELP (Code Excited Linear Prediction). CELP is a fairly common standard for speech coding, used by e.g. GSM (and probably other digital cell-phone standards), Speex (the speech codec), and other systems that need to store digital speech efficiently.

While I don't know all the details of how CELP works, it basically does something like this: When the audio is recorded, the input signal is divided into short segments (frames). For each frame, the encoder tries to recreate the sound wave of the frame using a synthesizer. The encoder outputs the set of synthesizer parameters that produce a synthesized sound that best matches the original sound. These synthesizer parameters are what is stored in the memory of the digital recorder. When the recorded speech is played back, the stored synthesizer parameters are used to synthesize sound, which hopefully will be resonably similar to the input.

The advantage of this method is that it makes it possible to reproduce intelligible speech at a very low bitrate. Also, since the coder usually is tuned to human speech, it can actually make the speech come out clearer and filter out background noise. That's why digital cell phones often can work resonably well in noisy environments.

One downside is that while the output might be intelligible, it can sound synthetic, and the voice might sound different from the original. Listen to the clips on the page CACTUSJACK linked. Lou's voice sounds almost like a synthesized voice (which it kind of is).

Also, if you try to record something other than human speech, it will likely be horribly mangled. The encoder will try to find the best match possible, and since it's only equiped to reliably reproduce human speech it's pretty likely that the output will sound a lot like human speech, no matter what the input sounds like.

Googling RR-DR60 and EVP suggests that that specific model is the tool of choice for EVPers. Probably because of it's ability to turn any noise into something vaguely human sounding.


Thanks Scoob for this very enlightening explanation from one who is hopelessly lost when it comes to electronics. I used to think EVP's were just people hearing patterns from random noise, like the way we can see pictures on a fuzzy carpet. Now I understand the device sort of does this by itself! Amazing! Thanks for the education!

[strathmeyer]

Well here's my 2 cents worth for a format.

1- Setup requires two shielded sound rooms, one with a microphone, the other with a recording device.
2- The claimant sits in the first room with a judge, who will have control of the microphone, which will broadcast into the adjacent room when activated.
3- The judge will activate the microphone and signal the claimant, who will ask any question s/he wishes. This is played into the room with the recorder and noted for time.
4- The microphone is shut off and the recorder continues for a set period of time.
5- Repeat steps 3+4 a number of times.
6- Judging is done by changes in sound level on the recording that occur after the microphone has been shut off. Any increase of predermined decible level is considered a hit.

I think this would eliminate the option of cheating, decent sound equipment + shielding would remove random noise and the required change in decibles for a hit would eliminate any argument about what was said.

Instead of trying to remov random noise, all you have to do is have a proper control.

[Hitch]

Exactly, Hitch, which is why I think we need multiple recordings, and the applicant must pick the correct one (i.e.-the one with his answers) from among a group of empty recorders.
But what if the "spirits" decide to talk through the "control" recorder rather than the "test" recorder? Spirits can be like that sometimes. They always seem to do the opposite of what a skeptic would expect.

[Hellbound]

True, but we can minimize the legitimacy of this complaint by, for example, making the control recordings before the actual recording, or in other areas, or both.

Woos will always have an "out", an excuse, no matter how well the setup. I'm not really looking for something that will prevent them from making excuses (I don't think such a thing exists), but simply a way to show the irrational and ad hoc nature of these beliefs to those not completely taken in by them.

[drfrank]

IMO, the "voices" Lou is hearing is simply an artifact of how his recorder works. Notice that he is pretty specific about the model that he requires.


Interesting stuff, skooob, I hadn't heard thought about it like that before.

I guess that makes distinguishing human voices in the output very similar to seeing `canals' on Mars - pareidolia operating on compression artifacts.

[Mendeli]

I don't suppose Kramer just completely forgot all about mr Gentile's application... but it's certainly been a while already after TAM4. Well, maybe with what all has happened since with Randi has had an effect on things... or maybe they've had some private negotiations. Anyways, it's curious...the silence.

[Hitch]

...
Anyways, it's curious...the silence.
Sorry. That last line made me laugh in this context.

[Tirdun]

I don't suppose Kramer just completely forgot all about mr Gentile's application... but it's certainly been a while already after TAM4. Well, maybe with what all has happened since with Randi has had an effect on things... or maybe they've had some private negotiations. Anyways, it's curious...the silence.

I dunno, with 2 million (Randi + other skeptics) I'd be making a riotous amount of noise to move things along.

Plus the book sales!!!:

How I Talk To The Dead
by Tirdun

[Cool swirly graphic here]

Only winner EVER of the 1 MILLION Dollar
Randi Paranormal Challenge!!

[KevinM]

Ok first I'm a coleague of Mr Gentile and in fact was co author on both the original press release and on the application. As such I can probably clear a few things up.

1) The reason that we suggested the evps be analyzed independently is very simple. It gives the ability to compare voice prints against participitants and thus rule out some one whispering under there breath.

2) As to the suggestion of sealed envelopes or containers lets be clear about some thing. We stipulate the voices are of an unknown origin. No where in the application do we state or presume they are ghosts, angels, demons or any other spiritual being. Do we have an oppinion certainly but as I'm sure you'll agree establishing the phenomenon comes before proving the origins. We're currently looking into running this sort of test to see what sort of results we can obtain.

3) Kramer has contacted us and the delay is in relation to the bypass. Randi apparently is interested in being involved directly so as such we are happy to wait for his recovery and wish him well during this time of hardship. Mr Gentile and I both respect Mr Randi and were very sorry to hear about his operation.

4) As to the recorder unfortunately its been discontinued by the manufacturer. Getting another one of the same type may be very difficult which is why we suggested turning one of his recorders over to a qualified engineer to check for any trickery. If one can be found that is an original from the manufacturer then we would in fact prefer to use it.

5) As to the quality of voices given a large enough sample(and the sample laid down in the application WOULD qualify) Mr Gentile can get completely clear voices. The only manipulation that might be required is speeding up or slowing down the recording itself(a function available on the recorder) because some of the voices tend to come through faster or slower then normal.

I think I've covered most of the major questions I will be checking back occasionally if any one has any additional questions.

Kevin Meares
Co Host "The Lou Gentile Show"

[petre]

Well resoned, a departure from the usual entry. It is no surprise Randi wants to get personally involved. Best of luck!

Since you'll be back for questions, I'm wondering if you've identified steps that may make testing easier that won't interfere with success? For example, will it work if the recorder is sealed in a box? In another room (maybe with a speaker to project the question, which is then turned off during the "answer" period)? Finding the limitations may ease negotiation later.

[Ducky]

Ok first I'm a coleague of Mr Gentile and in fact was co author on both the original press release and on the application. As such I can probably clear a few things up.

1) The reason that we suggested the evps be analyzed independently is very simple. It gives the ability to compare voice prints against participitants and thus rule out some one whispering under there breath.

2) As to the suggestion of sealed envelopes or containers lets be clear about some thing. We stipulate the voices are of an unknown origin. No where in the application do we state or presume they are ghosts, angels, demons or any other spiritual being. Do we have an oppinion certainly but as I'm sure you'll agree establishing the phenomenon comes before proving the origins. We're currently looking into running this sort of test to see what sort of results we can obtain.

3) Kramer has contacted us and the delay is in relation to the bypass. Randi apparently is interested in being involved directly so as such we are happy to wait for his recovery and wish him well during this time of hardship. Mr Gentile and I both respect Mr Randi and were very sorry to hear about his operation.

4) As to the recorder unfortunately its been discontinued by the manufacturer. Getting another one of the same type may be very difficult which is why we suggested turning one of his recorders over to a qualified engineer to check for any trickery. If one can be found that is an original from the manufacturer then we would in fact prefer to use it.

5) As to the quality of voices given a large enough sample(and the sample laid down in the application WOULD qualify) Mr Gentile can get completely clear voices. The only manipulation that might be required is speeding up or slowing down the recording itself(a function available on the recorder) because some of the voices tend to come through faster or slower then normal.

I think I've covered most of the major questions I will be checking back occasionally if any one has any additional questions.

Kevin Meares
Co Host "The Lou Gentile Show"


Thank you for your response. Just to be clear, I have nothing whatsoever to do with the JREF in any official fashion. I am curious on one point, though:

What protocol would be acceptable to ensure against cross modulation or radio interference?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

KevinM:

Previously I suggested a test protocol that would eliminate many of the potential problems with testing a claim of this sort. Would the following be an acceptable way to test this claim?

The applicant would be properly blindfolded next to a stack of cards. Each card would have a large number printed on one side. The recording would be started. The applicant would pick up the first card and show it to the room and ask the voices to speak the number that is on the card. After a set amount of time the recording would be stopped and the media would be ejected from the recorder and be labeled “1st Card”. New media would be inserted and the process repeated for the second card.

This would be done an agreed upon number of times. When finished the applicant would be given a sufficient amount of time to review the recordings. The applicant would write the number he thinks he hears on the media. When the applicant is finished, the number on the first card will be compared to the number written on the media. Repeat this for each card/media. If enough of the cards match the number written by the applicant on the media, the test would be considered a success!

This kind of test would likely require very little in the way of soundproofing or machine testing. Also there would be no reason to have some try to interpret what was said on the recording. The applicant can judge for himself what was recorded.

LLH
*note: I do not represent the JREF! While I like to think I have a good idea of what the JREF might require for a test, ultimately anything involving the Million Dollar Challenge must be done through the JREF.

[Flange Desire]

Ok first I'm a coleague of Mr Gentile and in fact was co author on both the original press release and on the application. As such I can probably clear a few things up. SNIP

Kevin - just a thank you.
Such clear communication is very much appreciated on this forum.

[Mendeli]

Sorry. That last line made me laugh in this context.

Ahh-a! You catched it! Normally nobody laughs at my gentle, yet intelligent hints, puns and stupid jokes...

Except this time even I didn't get it before you did, (insert curse word). It would have been so great to have been able to honestly claim it was intentional. ;)

edit: Oh and about the recording device, it might be worthwhile to check ebay every once in a while. If lucky, such a device just might be found!

(and thanks KevinM for answering about the delay!)

One question though.

As to the quality of voices given a large enough sample(and the sample laid down in the application WOULD qualify) Mr Gentile can get completely clear voices.


As important or perhaps even more so as the fact of if the voices are clear or not, is the question of if the voices make any sense.

If you show a card with a number in it in a room while properly blindfolded and ask what the number is, (etc just like lordofthelefthand suggested) will it be more likely that the voice answers something like "five" instead of "green" or "rapsberry juice"? I know this might sound offending, but please bear with me, I'm honestly curious and fashinated about this!

[LordoftheLeftHand]

If you show a card with a number in it in a room while properly blindfolded and ask what the number is, (etc just like lordofthelefthand suggested) will it be more likely that the voice answers something like "five" instead of "green" or "rapsberry juice"? I know this might sound offending, but please bear with me, I'm honestly curious and fashinated about this!

That's true. But lets say the numbers on the card are randomly determined between 1 and 20, and 10 cards are used. Since the applicant does no know what number was on the card, if he tries to guess he will have a 5% chance of getting each card correct. By my figuring he would have a 0.0000000000098 % chance of getting 10 out of 10 correct (if he is guessing). Should be just about impossible, unless ghosts are actually talking to the recording...

LLH

[KevinM]

As for protocols for eliminating external interference the first thing that would occur to me is the use of a Farraday cage. We have used this in the past and still obtained succsesful results so certainly could do so again. Using technology to scan radio frequencies also would certainly help(another common part of testing). Also quite honestly the nature of questions can make a major difference. I'm not an expert in statistics but I would think that if you get an inteligeble answer that fits the question (bearing in mind theres only 60 seconds alloted between each question) the odds are not in favor of a random radio signal hitting the recorder at just the right time with just the right word. Its not impossible which is of course the point of repeating it. As for the cards its a good suggestion and some thing else we'll look into.

In general several aspects of the test were specified by us just to narrow down the possibility of cheating. This is precisely why we stipulated that the recorders and the persons involved are to be subject to examination before the test and after any arranged break. Fitting us with throat mikes is also completely acceptable. As to the recorder itself it should be in the same room but beyond that theres no need for direct interaction between it and Mr Gentile. It would be fine on the other side of the room under complete video survelence for example(I'd have to double check with Mr Gentile but being in a box away from him might work as well as long as the box wasn't so thick as to interfere with his asking questions.

[joller]

I'm not an expert in statistics but I would think that if you get an inteligeble answer that fits the question (bearing in mind theres only 60 seconds alloted between each question) the odds are not in favor of a random radio signal hitting the recorder at just the right time with just the right word. Its not impossible which is of course the point of repeating it. As for the cards its a good suggestion and some thing else we'll look into.
I don't think anyone suggests the voices picked up are 'random radio signals' - the chances are too small, or it wouldn't be considered paranormal, unless the claim is that lou's presence amplifies random radio signals (so he works as a kind of an amplifier)
The fact that the answer is 'on subject' and 'intelligeble' is irrelevant, since Lou will know up front that there will be cards shown with numbers on it.

In general several aspects of the test were specified by us just to narrow down the possibility of cheating.
i'm not worried about the ones you specified (since obviously they don't give up the trick), I'm worried about the ones you didn't specify.
How about using a high class finely tuned voice recorder?

Fitting us with throat mikes is also completely acceptable.
Glad to read that.

As much as I'd like to see the claim tested, I don't like the fact that it requires a specific recorder. maybe it's the recorder model that is paranormal? :)

Kevin, you said you don't know the nature of the voices (although you obviously have an opinion) - are you sure the voices will be able to say the card numbers even if Lou does not see the cards?

[vIQleS]

I thought we had decided that the voices were caused by the voice clarification technology that is a feature of the recorders being specified.

[KevinM]

I do not know for certain whether what ever it is will be able to read the cards. To answer it I plan on running tests specificly of that sort and see what happens. As for the recorder Mr Gentile has gotten EVPs with every thing from reel to reel to the latest in digital recorders using a host of different microphones. His succsess rate with most recorders is about one hit out of fifty questions. The time required to produce meaningful results at that ratio would be frustrating at best. With the specified recorder Mr Gentile can get consistent accurate results which is why we're insisting on using one specific type of recorder. If the concern is some hidden transmitter in the recorder itself a qualified engineer should not have trouble finding it especially if a representative of the company itself can be contacted. Further proper shielding obviously should be in place to block external signals either random or delibarete factors that can be further minimized by using a location Mr Gentile is not aware of till the test takes place that is some distance from Philadelphia. Combine that with shielding, throat mikes, and a thorough search of Mr Gentile, myself and the recorder and you can realisticly eliminate the possibility of deception.

[Ducky]

I have a further question:

Is this a digital recorder? IF so what is the test control against the player's fragmented ram or flash memory inserting something into the recording per error? Also, what about the question of whether that specific recorder model has a history of errors with the voice clarification technology?

It would stand to reason that if this specific recorder was consistently erroring in a way to produce voices, then some way of clearing the memory and having a tech reset to factory settings/conditions would help.

[KevinM]

Since its any example of the model bringing in a new one entirely would eliminate the possibility of prerecordings. For that matter as you pointed out turning it over to the manufacturer or a similarly qualified person should be able to eliminate those possibilities by making sure its completely wiped clean.

[Ducky]

Ok. Which make/model is it?

[KevinM]

See the original challenge its listed there.

[KevinM]

Unfotttunately I broke my right wrist recently. As such I eon't be responding to posts for a while..

[chran]

Unfotttunately I broke my right wrist recently. As such I eon't be responding to posts for a while.. Well, that sucks. Hope you have a girlfriend!

[Shevek-72]

Apparantly, these are the kind of EVPs that this guy claims to be able to produce.
(URL deleted as I'm not allowed to repost it)

That's all he's able to produce? Pathetic. This is just noise. The only one where one could hear something that faintly resembles speech melody and rhythm is the one supposed to be "please don't harm me". And that might also be "I hate the army", "I cursed the fig tree", "Man, it's cold here!" or "Insert a coin here".

I don't think you'd get 2 independent listeners to write down the same sentence afterwards.

[KevinM]

First thanks for the concern. Secondly no the stuff online is not our best thats generaly reserved for lectures or the show. Finally I can add at last report(a few days ago) Mr Gentile had not been contacted by JREF in over a month not even a curtesy email to inform us of Krammer's departure. Given that we've held up our side this is disappointing although we are still interested.

[chillzero]

Kevin, I don't think he should take it personally. If you read through the main site banners, you will see very quickly that the JREF has had a few other things going on lately.

[Peachy]

I looked over some of Mr. Gentile's previous recordings under some digital audio editing equipment, and found a strange digital signature.

When looking at a word, or sequence of words digitally, we can actually pick out where a vowel or consonant begin and end. A consonant requires a stoppage of air, and is therefore a sharper, stronger signal (like a spike), where vowels are generally the continuation of air, and get a decreasing signal, or a much slower, smoother signal when beginning a word. So, we can easily detect where a consonant begins after a vowel. We can also interpret vowels by how far apart the consonants are without silence, and when a word begins with a vowel.

What I've found so far in Mr. Gentile's recordings is the near absence of consonants. Instead of spikes, the words in question are simply showing solid blocks of audio data. The only consonant found is at the begining of the sound, and there are no spikes thereafter to signify consonants, and no dropage in signal to signify a following vowel. This points to the explanation given by skoob earlier about the technology of the recorder.

Considering that there are no consonants or vowels to detect, I don't understand how he is interpreting words (as they would be unintelligible) other than to interpret the pitch, rhythm, and tone of the sound. Can anybody find a phrase he has detected that begins with a vowel so I can compare them?

Also finding a result of 1 in 50, especially on reel to reel (about the only non-digital recording device still used) does not seem particularly significant. A reel tape may have defects, a kink in the tape, or if the tape had been previously edited, that would all cause certain strange sounds. This all causes me to question why he gets the best results with lowest quality recorder? It seems very counter-intuitive.

[joller]

I do not know for certain whether what ever it is will be able to read the cards. To answer it I plan on running tests specificly of that sort and see what happens.
Well, can we get an update? Can 'the voices' read the cards that Lou himself can't see?

Secondly no the stuff online is not our best thats generaly reserved for lectures or the show.

Why not? I'd have thought you'd like to get your best on the web site, to generate more interest

[QOUTE]Finally I can add at last report(a few days ago) Mr Gentile had not been contacted by JREF in over a month not even a curtesy email to inform us of Krammer's departure. Given that we've held up our side this is disappointing although we are still interested.[/QUOTE]
It sure is disappointing.
Peachy:
This all causes me to question why he gets the best results with lowest quality recorder? It seems very counter-intuitive.
Well, we've been told in this thread that the technology of this recorder tends to produce sounds when there are none, because of the use of some sort of interpolation. If the noise is anything like a sound it will convert it into one.

[KevinM]

Quick update: First I've been busy with personal matters and healing which is the reason for the delay. Second we've checked into the envelopes and the verdict is yes they will work. Some one more disconcerting is reports that have reached us that Randi is preparing to do interviews and is planning on giving the fact we have not sent him a list of questions as the delay(yes I am aware of the post regarding his healing which is understandably and we wish him the best). For the record no request has ever been sent for a list of questions(we hadn't sent one originaly to allow for input from JREF) so we were incapable of sending it. Any one interested can find a copy of every correspondence we've sent or recieved at the lougentile.com website,

[ProbeX]

LordoftheLeftHand
14th February 2006, 05:38 PM
KevinM:

Previously I suggested a test protocol that would eliminate many of the potential problems with testing a claim of this sort. Would the following be an acceptable way to test this claim?

The applicant would be properly blindfolded next to a stack of cards. Each card would have a large number printed on one side. The recording would be started. The applicant would pick up the first card and show it to the room and ask the voices to speak the number that is on the card. After a set amount of time the recording would be stopped and the media would be ejected from the recorder and be labeled “1st Card”. New media would be inserted and the process repeated for the second card.

This would be done an agreed upon number of times. When finished the applicant would be given a sufficient amount of time to review the recordings. The applicant would write the number he thinks he hears on the media. When the applicant is finished, the number on the first card will be compared to the number written on the media. Repeat this for each card/media. If enough of the cards match the number written by the applicant on the media, the test would be considered a success!

Hi, newbie to the forum. I like this idea, except the cards assume entities (whoever they are) are capable of seeing. That's too much of an assumption. For all we know "they" can only hear us.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Hi, newbie to the forum. I like this idea, except the cards assume entities (whoever they are) are capable of seeing. That's too much of an assumption. For all we know "they" can only hear us.


If that was the case, the protocol I suggested could be adapted to incorporate this limitation.

Of course this applicant seems to have disappeared. Apparently he did not need the million dollars. Or maybe he realized he was not going to be able to pull the wool over the JREF's eyes. Or perhaps he went back on his medication...

LLH

[ProbeX]

How would you propose adapting the test to accommodate this "problem"?

[Expression_man]

While the source of these, supposedly audible, responses is in question it's interesting to note that Spiricom (http://www.worlditc.org/k_06_spiricom.htm) (with all of its controversy) also made use of background ambient noise as a means, for the source of the phenomena, to clearly articulate sounds/words.

The only thing that matters here is getting a clear response without the involvement of foul play.