| View previous topic | View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Aedryan Methyus
Prestigious Innovator Of Ghost Study
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 940
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
 Posted: Mar Tue 28, 2006 9:24 am Post subject: Universal EVP Classification System |
 |
|
We have put a lot of thought into coming up with a Universal EVP Classification System and we urge other paranormal investigators to consider adopting it, because most groups either don't use a classification system at all or they use the old standard classification system, which we do not feel is nearly descriptive enough for all of the different types of EVP's we have encountered.
Our classification system now consists of 3 parts (Class, Level & Catagory) as follows:
Class:
Class DC ( Direct Communication) = The voice clearly answered a question or directly responded to something said.
Class PC (Personal Communication) = The voice clearly says something meaningful directly to someone that is present.
Class RC ( Random Communication) = A voice that answers no direct question, does not appear to be aimed at any particualr person and doesn't make sense in the context it was received. Totally random.
___________________________________________
Level:
Level 1 = Loud, clear and easy to understand, sounds like natural speech (includes whispers and fast speech).
Level 2 = Lower volume and the voice is warped, but it is discernable.
Level 3 = Very low volume, hard to understand, excessively warped.
___________________________________________
Catagory:
Morph = The voice and/or the words of someone who is speaking are changed into something else in the playback of the recording. Words that are different than the person spoke or one voice changing to another, etc.
ERV (Event Related Voices) = Events such as, someone talking or coughing or the sound of a passing car or train, etc. seemed to trigger the Electronic Voice Phenomenon.
TR (Thread Related) = One utterance is a comment on or a response to an utterance just before. They are related by contextual thread. Hearing two or more voices talking to each other or a voice responding to something previously said by itself and/or someone or "something" else.
CHR (Chorale) = Two or more voices are speaking at the same time, either saying the same thing or something different.
- Aedryan
_________________
 |
|
|
... |
|
 Back to top |
ghostlydad
Ghost Enthusiast
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 25
Location: A Small Town North,Ohio
|
| Posted: Apr Fri 14, 2006 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Meth,
I like your classification system much better than the standard one. Can we post this classification system on our site. Of course we will give you the props and a link back to your site. I will not post of use anything without the prior approval of the site it came from. The old system just does not work and fit all the different types of evp's. Yours works much better. Good work.
_________________
Founder
 |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
Aedryan Methyus
Prestigious Innovator Of Ghost Study
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 940
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Apr Mon 24, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By all means, please feel free to use it. This system may still evolve and be updated once in a great while, as everything in paranormal investigation should, but I feel that it's definitely a much more solid system than the ancient one that is circulating around the internet.
- Aedryan
_________________
|
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
OMS Transmitting
Ghost Lovin Phreak!
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 119
|
| Posted: Dec Sun 03, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like that you've left your classification system open to change over time. That's what I've done w mine too.
Your system takes into consideration many more parameters than most other systems.
Gentle suggestion about "Level": Consider adding a suggested tool for objectively measuring strength of sound.
How strong or weak an EVP is is often open to interpretation. Especially since any matrixing (including bleeding of ambient sound into the alleged EVP) can result in what's considered a very clear EVP by one observer, and weak to no EVP for another.
Also, peoples' hearing abilities vary. So someone who has (unidentified) hearing loss may decide your Level 1, is a Level 2 or 3.
One possibe tool in objectively gauging strength of an EVP is to use an audio program to test your mystery sound against the strength of surrounding objects.
Then maybe you can work out a percentage rating system. For ex: If the EVP voice shows a strength of 70% or greater relative to adjacent or overlapped noises, then it gets labeled a Level 1. Lower % values get assigned higher Level grades. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
Aedryan Methyus
Prestigious Innovator Of Ghost Study
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 940
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Dec Sun 03, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Gentle suggestion about "Level": Consider adding a suggested tool for objectively measuring strength of sound.
How strong or weak an EVP is is often open to interpretation. Especially since any matrixing (including bleeding of ambient sound into the alleged EVP) can result in what's considered a very clear EVP by one observer, and weak to no EVP for another.
|
You are exactly right about the flaw in the level rating. I do actually have a system that i've been working on for awhile for accurately rating the levels in dB and hZ. Once it's finished, the level rating will be determined by a chart, which corrosponds to the dB and hZ level of the EVP. The chart will probably just go from 1 - 5 or something. Additionally, background/white noise dB and hZ levels will be documented and included with each EVP for future data comparison purposes.
I should get back to work on this actually. I just about had it ready to rock & roll. My whole purpose originally, was to devise an accurate system for scientifically catagorizing and documenting EVP's, which would become the standard for ALL investigators, but you know how that goes. People are either too stupid or too arrogant in this "field" to get on the same page and work together on anything. That is one of the many reasons why absolutely nothing has ever really been achieved in ghost study....
- Aedryan
_________________
|
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
OMS Transmitting
Ghost Lovin Phreak!
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 119
|
| Posted: Dec Mon 04, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds good! As for classification systems I agree w you that we are definitely not all on the same page. I also agree that arrogance is a problem.
Then some of us have genuinely thought-out systems that differ, but are equally valid. Yours is just as valid as mine, but there are fundamental differences btw. ours. One is calibrated to include scientists (which admittedly, is a small part of our population lol!). The other will work out for people who hold similar standards to you (which are better-than-average IMO  ).
For me the main problem behind lack of consistency in standards has to do w clashing belief systems around the paranormal.
You have a rather large group of ppl demanding any system of guidelines is too oppressive. They're taking your argument of "I have nothing to prove to anyone" (in my classif. system thread) to an extreme.
Basically their idea is that if you feel or sense something to be true, who is anyone to question my "proof"? Why analyze it? - I know what I hear even if it sounds like grizzle to everyone else. And annoyingly, they have a right to judge their stuff poorly. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
fratka
Prestigious Innovator Of Ghost Study
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 566
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Dec Mon 04, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My problem with classification systems in general are that tend to set limits even when they are not intended too. You and your colleagues may not intend for your classification system to be set in stone but further down the line when and if it is adopted, people will tend to adhere to its rules too stringently. In other words they tend to concentrate on the "shovel instead of digging the damn hole"!
As belief systems go, again they should not be taken as truth. Beliefs are never the truth, they are a general representation of "understood" reality. Sometimes they are conducive to the ultimate reality, which is supporting for the most part but it can also work against the individuals goals if taken too far. Another case of concentrating too much on the rules and not enough on the game.
_________________
Frank Ratka
Death does not exist!
http://thecontactfield.blogspot.com/
http://www.myspace.com/fratka |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
OMS Transmitting
Ghost Lovin Phreak!
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 119
|
| Posted: Dec Mon 04, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | My problem with classification systems in general are that tend to set limits even when they are not intended too. You and your colleagues may not intend for your classification system to be set in stone but further down the line when and if it is adopted, people will tend to adhere to its rules too stringently. In other words they tend to concentrate on the "shovel instead of digging the damn hole"! |
Actually I disagree with this. While concentrating too much on the shovel is unproductive, so is tossing the shovel aside as useless. Systems don’t create limits; people do. And unhelpful systems can only be adopted by the willing.
Ideally systems are allowed to change over time to accommodate new discoveries in methodology. Adjustments and even a total rewrite of a system is reasonable. Independent, critical thinking prevents abuse of the application of that system. It is human fault to blame for blind acceptance of any given system.
Thoughtful guidelines/ systems of methodology are quite oftten useful and even advancing for humans who don’t abuse them. They often offer shortcuts; an educational endowment, based on the byproduct of previous investigators’ errors. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
OMS Transmitting
Ghost Lovin Phreak!
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 119
|
| Posted: Dec Mon 04, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | My problem with classification systems in general are that tend to set limits even when they are not intended too. You and your colleagues may not intend for your classification system to be set in stone but further down the line when and if it is adopted, people will tend to adhere to its rules too stringently. In other words they tend to concentrate on the "shovel instead of digging the damn hole"! |
Actually I disagree with this. While concentrating too much on the shovel is unproductive, so is tossing the shovel aside as useless. Systems don’t create limits; people do. And unhelpful systems can only be adopted by the willing.
Ideally systems are allowed to change over time to accommodate new discoveries in methodology. Adjustments and even a total rewrite of a system is reasonable. Independent, critical thinking prevents abuse of the application of that system. It is human fault to blame for blind acceptance of any given system. Not the system itself.
Thoughtful guidelines/ systems of methodology are quite oftten useful and even advancing for humans who don’t abuse them. They often offer shortcuts; an educational endowment, based on the byproduct of previous investigators’ errors. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
fratka
Prestigious Innovator Of Ghost Study
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 566
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Dec Mon 04, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Thoughtful guidelines/ systems of methodology are quite oftten useful and even advancing for humans who don’t abuse them. |
How ofter does that happen? I'm speaking in realistic terms. I also meant to add about making a system flexible enough for change but that really doesn't matter anyways because you will still have those who adhere to it rigidly.
Even scientific method itself has created a dog-chasing it's tale mentality amongst researchers. As science advances more and more scientists are looking at consciousness and the orgone type energies as explanations of the binding agents holding it all together. If that makes sense! I hope I didn't have too much on the conversation in my head again...hold on let me put the pipe down.
I love being the devil's advocate! LOL 
_________________
Frank Ratka
Death does not exist!
http://thecontactfield.blogspot.com/
http://www.myspace.com/fratka |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
Aedryan Methyus
Prestigious Innovator Of Ghost Study
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 940
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Dec Mon 04, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Then some of us have genuinely thought-out systems that differ, but are equally valid. Yours is just as valid as mine, but there are fundamental differences btw. ours. One is calibrated to include scientists (which admittedly, is a small part of our population lol!). The other will work out for people who hold similar standards to you (which are better-than-average IMO).
|
Include scientists!? LOL! I love that! Who exactly would you say are the "scientists" in the study of ghosts, dear? Because, i've gotta say, i've never encountered a bunch of brainy old, bald men, wearing lab coats (or whatever people visualize when they think of scientists) out in the cemeteries in the middle of the night....
Anyway.... The thing is, my classification system is based on pretty much every form of EVP "manifestation"? that I have personally captured evidence of or currently know of. That is how the "Class" and "Catagory" parts of the system derived. I didn't just throw all those cool words and abbreviations in there, because it sounded cool or made me look smart.... lol
And as I had already mentioned, the "Level" part of the classification system is determined by the actual dB and hZ spikes produced by the actual EVP. I just haven't created the simple "1 - 5" scale system to corrospond with those readings yet, because I haven't been inspired/compelled enough to do it. Once that is done, I don't feel there will not be a whole lot of room for debate with this system. Yeah, the "clarity" and "easy to understand" aspect will still be slightly debatable, but you've already heard my views on that in my EVP rant thread....
Our systems have nothing to do with each other and I just don't see where mine is so "un-scientific" to you, OMS. This system is based on collected evidence, observations and theories, as well as actual instrumental readings and it promises a reasonable means of scientifically documenting and comparing significant/relevant data about electronic voice phenomenon. I feel that this system will show us some interesting statistics in the future, once I go back and apply it to all of our EVP's and compare data. I already did it with a few of them awhile back and I was seeing some interesting comparisons.
Your system's purpose is simply to try and prove that EVP recordings are authentic to begin with. As I said before, if strict protocols are adhered to during EVP sessions and we are honest, WE already know they are genuine, so what is the point? Fuck everybody else (I always say)! You can go to whatever extreme you want, trying to prove electronic voice phenomenon to naysayers and it's a complete waste of time. You will just be pissing in the wind (I wonder if a girl has ever tried that ). No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for the hardcore skeptics and they will always have some lame explanation.
Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have a completely soundproof room to record EVP's in, but it would be for much more useful data collection/comparison than simply proving/disproving the authenticity of electronic voice phenomenon....
- Aedryan
_________________
|
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
OMS Transmitting
Ghost Lovin Phreak!
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 119
|
| Posted: Dec Mon 04, 2006 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fratka wrote: | | Quote: | | Thoughtful guidelines/ systems of methodology are quite oftten useful and even advancing for humans who don’t abuse them. |
How ofter does that happen? I'm speaking in realistic terms. I also meant to add about making a system flexible enough for change but that really doesn't matter anyways because you will still have those who adhere to it rigidly. |
Yeah I see your point that throngs of people aren't rushing to not be careless. That's painfully true! But realistically I don't think it means systems are problematic. It's still the people. And some do utilize carefully expressed systems and guidelines.
| Quote: | Even scientific method itself has created a dog-chasing it's tale mentality amongst researchers. As science advances more and more scientists are looking at consciousness and the orgone type energies as explanations of the binding agents holding it all together. If that makes sense! I hope I didn't have too much on the conversation in my head again...hold on let me put the pipe down.
I love being the devil's advocate! LOL |
Funny, in some ways I feel like I'm doing the same thing - being a devil's advocate. Part of me despises the the very word "System". It's the same part that likes to feel free to explore things and record & study them in my own way and in my own time |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
OMS Transmitting
Ghost Lovin Phreak!
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 119
|
| Posted: Dec Mon 04, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aedryan Methyus wrote: | | Include scientists!? LOL! I love that! Who exactly would you say are the "scientists" in the study of ghosts, dear? |
Well toots, I see you’ve gotten a little hot under the collar lol. Actually, I never addressed the study of ghosts, rather paranormal activity. That’s your own inference. There are indeed physicists, mechanical engineers (amongst various other disciplinary rep.s) interested in the study of paranormal activity.
You are correct about one thing: I highly doubt any scientist worth his or her salt will choose a cemetery setting for a controlled ASSP experiment.
| Quote: | | Anyway.... The thing is, my classification system is based on pretty much every form of EVP "manifestation"? that I have personally captured evidence of or currently know of. That is how the "Class" and "Catagory" parts of the system derived. I didn't just throw all those cool words and abbreviations in there, because it sounded cool or made me look smart.... lol |
Aedryan, your tone is a little defensive but I’m not attacking your system. You are merely telling me what I already observed. You said:
| Quote: | | Anyway.... The thing is, my classification system is based on pretty much every form of EVP "manifestation"? that I have personally captured evidence of or currently know of. That is how the "Class" and "Catagory" parts of the system derived. I didn't just throw all those … |
I think it’s great that you’ve amassed a large body of experiences w EVP. I think that’s needed. But rather than arguing against your system, I’m acknowledging that you are one person w one unique body of work. You represent one person’s experience w/EVP. So you are the expert on the findings of what you have captured (which may contradict other researchers’ findings and vice versa).
What makes others’ thoughtful systems perfectly valid too (including mine), is that we also have “personally captured evidence” and set up systems based on every form of “EVP manifestation” we’ve encountered. Just like you. This is one main reason it’s logical to conclude no one person’s system will likely get universally adopted by everyone. We simply know too little about this phenomenon. We have to remain humble about that.
The proof is in the pudding. If you believe your system is sufficiently scientific then time will bare that out. And since you insist on making your “girlie” references lol … Let me put it to you in a language you’ll understand:
Don’t let your panties get all twisted in a knot simply because there’s a difference in opinion over what qualifies as “science”. Getting so emotional (and caustic) over our difference in opinion is unproductive. There is room for both of our systems. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
fratka
Prestigious Innovator Of Ghost Study
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 566
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Dec Mon 04, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would chime in with a little humor but it probably would not be well received. I will say a big, "told you so" on the problems with systems and a persons rigid adherence though! **Vaguely applies past comments!**
Sorry, am I acting up again!
_________________
Frank Ratka
Death does not exist!
http://thecontactfield.blogspot.com/
http://www.myspace.com/fratka |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
Aedryan Methyus
Prestigious Innovator Of Ghost Study
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 940
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Dec Mon 04, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Well toots, I see you’ve gotten a little hot under the collar lol. Actually, I never addressed the study of ghosts, rather paranormal activity. That’s your own inference. There are indeed physicists, mechanical engineers (amongst various other disciplinary rep.s) interested in the study of paranormal activity.
You are correct about one thing: I highly doubt any scientist worth his or her salt will choose a cemetery setting for a controlled ASSP experiment.
|
Wow.... This is where people ALWAYS misinterpret me. I swear, it never fails! LOL! I'm not even the least bit "hot under the collar". It seems that every time I defend a difference of opinion and back it up with facts, instead of just being agreeable, people automatically assume that I am attacking them and they stomp off mad. Which.... Is fine....*shrugs* 
But, I do have to point out that, "physicists, mechanical engineers (amongst various other disciplinary rep.s)" sitting at a desk in some soundproof room, calculating numbers and averages and probablities, etc know absolutely nothing more and probably even LESS about ghosts than people of average intelligence like myself, who pull into the cemetery, listening to Cradle Of Filth and wearing black from head to toe. In fact, I would almost have to bet that those of us regular people, who are out in the trenches trying a wide variety of techniques, collecting data in a variety of environments and looking outside of the stuffy little skeptical box will be the ones who produce the definitive answers in the end (if anyone does).
As Frank said, investigators like ourselves are the authorities on ghost research (if anyone is), not the "scientists"....
- Aedryan
_________________
|
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
