Some thoughts based on my experiences with ghost box and other forms of ITC. I have hacked every version of the shack hack that is known based off instructions found on the net, also have a minibox classic from paranormal systems. I am still in the process of building a genuine Frank's box based off of his schematics, but I am having issues with the RVG schematic (not for beginners, lol).

First off, with the ghost box, it does use randomly or linear tuned radio broadcast audio as a source for the "raw audio" portion of the message. By knowing it's mechanism, it automatically renders it a subjective device, only applicable as entertainment only. That being said, the best that you can do to reduce the chance of coincidental fragments or pareidolia is to try and implement session controls. Examples of this would be to ask the communicating presence to tell you your first, last names, or hold and object and ask them to identify it. Asking random questions will always get answers, but you have to discriminate what is communication and what is natural broadcast fragment. I have had some interesting communication, that I believe to be genuine, but I think that this phenomenon goes beyond the ghost box. I have had external forces correctly identify me holding keys, tell me my name, etc… Again, it is merely subjective, but somewhat interesting. Limiting the response window to about 5 seconds and applying the session controls above it make for some interesting results.

I believe that the ghost box, along with speakjet boxes, ovilus, puck, evp maker with allophone file, RVP, DVP, Larsen loop, all of these methods of ITC communication work based on operator intent. I am not sure if this is some latent PK element on the part of the operator or communicator, but if you approach ITC communication with an open mind, usually you get some pretty stellar results. I love ITC communication, and it is a passion of mine, but I also know that these methods employ the very factors we try to eliminate from real investigative data (static, radio broadcast, emf jitter, etc…). Therefore, inclusion of these devices in a structured investigation is not wise, as they all produce subjective data. I was highly skeptical of these devices when I first started experimenting with them, but have since learned to appreciate the gift of communication, from whomever it may originate.

thanks

Andy

Interesting thoughts, Andy.

I have a Radio Shack hack – and have never really found much with it. Once it said my name when I asked, but that could have been random.

I also have a talker box from the Digital Dowsing talker kit that Jim built (and modified). Haven't used it much. Have watched Rob Fitzgerald at DeadScience use a SpeakJet (basically the same thing – I believe Rob invented the SpeakJet and then told Bill Chappell at DD how to do it, and Bill started making the kids with Rob's permission). Also have watched APART of WA use both the talker and the SpeakJet. I've only seen a few things that really were impressive so far, but I haven't spent enough time around it to really know. I'd like to get my hands on an Ovilus to play with, as well, but right now they are sold out and I don't know if DD is going to be making more.

It is my understanding that Digital Dowsing is going to shut down by the end of September. That comes straight from Bill in reference to some of my queries. He did say that was able to use the onboard sensors on the iPhone to emulate the ovilus and that an ovilus app should be available soon with all functionality. He is using the capacitive touch screen to measure emf fields, very cool. Unfortunately AT&T and me aren't on speaking terms, lol. Bill also said that he has entered into an arrangement with an electronics company to produce his gadgets, he simply gives them the working prototype and they mass produce it. Being such a niche market for his devices and being a one man operation, he is wanting to get back to research and leave production to someone else from what I gather from his recent podcast appearances.

I have the puck, and I have not been impressed so far with ECM mode. What I thought might have been relevant responses at one time, I look back and realize that it was likely background emf jitter. Not sure, but I am thinking of selling it soon.

Andy

Ovilus Ap, iPhone? Yay!!

I had heard he was shutting down, but was hoping it wasn't true. I assume he will do custom work then.

I'm not very familiar with any of these things in the thread, except from what I've seen on TV. Do these basically operate on the theory that because spirits may imprint noise on media, that they may be able to manipulate frequencies as well? It seems a bit wild to me. If a spirit can create a carrier wave properly for communication, then you'd think that one could freely manipulate less complicated speaking frequencies.

Though I don't understand the science behind this doesn't mean that it isn't happening, so please don't take offense to my questioning as it seems some of you are close to the projects yourselves. I suppose this is where I need to click on some of your blogs to figure it out.

Actually it is more that spirits might find a way to manipulate EMF in a way that makes sound. Someone who is more technically savvy than I am will have to explain any more than that.