On 1 June 2008, In the Shadows Paranormal Project entered into a high-profile case with a client in the North Western, United States. Although confidentiality agreements prevents us from revealing the case, this is the anatomy of an A.V.P. (Anomalous Voice Phenomena - Like an E.V.P. (Electronic Voice Phenomena), however not of a recognized disembodied human voice or entity – Origin unknown), and any information identifying the client has been removed. Recorder Used for Capture: Olympus WS-300M Digital Recorder Audio Files: Original Audio File: "29 May 08 - ORIGINAL" Adjusted Audio File: "29 May 08 - ADJUSTED". Software Used for Analysis: GoldWave version 5.2; Spectrogram 16 by Visualization Software, LLC. TIME LINE – Recording Begins at 2:35 pm MDT Into Recording Notation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [10:29] Sound, like a faint air pop [10:33/10:34] Two faint clicks [10:35] Voice begins in slowed speech [11:05] Voice ends, white noise continues [11:06] Click sound [11:07] White noise ends Spectrogram o Time Index=10:26 - 11:13 Audio Analysis Conclusion *Note: Please refer to the ADJUSTED audio file above to listen to the adjusted rendering. Adjustment was made from the ORIGINAL file  using GoldWave. The anomaly was speed adjusted by 320% to produce a likely and reasonable natural rendering after which the words were clearly discernible. Although mechanical in nature, the words spoken were: Voice 1: "Why are they here?" [Pause] "Father." ("Father" partially overlaps "For" from then next voice.) Voice 2: "For Starseed." Voice 1: "Can they see or hear us?" Voice 2: "Only if we let them." (There is what sounds like the word "they" inserted just before "we," as if to indicate a mid-sentence change in thought.) Voice 1 somewhat resembles a text-to-speech software generated voice, mechanical in nature, and has a slight British accent. Voice 2 sounds like natural human speech and resembles the voice of a middle-aged human male with an American accent. The second instance of Voice 2 ("Only if we let them") seems to be a different pitch from the first but has the vocal cadence of the first instance of Voice 2 ("For Starseed"). Both instances of Voice 2 seem to be the same individual. The voices sound like they were in close proximity to the digital recorder; however, no one but the client was in the home at the time. The method of delivery is uncertain. There are two faint clicks approximately 1 second before the anomaly begins and one faint click approximately 1 second after the voices end. These are consistent with the sounds of buttons being depressed on an analog audio recorder (such as a micro-cassette recorder). Digital recorders do not click, but it should be noted that the clicks are also consistent with a computer mouse. Since a mouse was present a few inches from the digital recorder, it seems that the mouse was the most likely source of the clicking sounds recorded. Additionally, 2 seconds of white noise is present after the voices end, which is consistent with the non-modulated atmospheric noise a recorder would make in playback mode. Due to the overlapping voices and the slow playback rate of the original recording, the audio had to have been either spoken live or produced via computer software for playback at a later date. Possible Explanations Regarding Production and Delivery Overview of Circumstances Two lead investigators with the In the Shadows Team arrived at the client’s home at approximately 2pm MDT on 29 May 2008. This visit to the client's home was planned at the last minute with just a few hours of advance notice. The lead investigator immediately upon arrival turned on his digital voice recorder at 2:35pm, then went down to the lower half-level family room area (split-level home). Being an empath, he mentioned that he felt like someone was watching him from the client's office, which is adjacent to the restroom and opposite the family room. After looking around and finding nothing, he returned upstairs. At approximately 2:45pm, the client was sitting at the dining room table working on the lead investigators laptop, with both investigators present with the client. The 2nd investigator went outside for a break, followed shortly by the client’s step-daughter, and finally the lead investigator.  Other than the client, no one else was left in the house,while the client replied to an email on the laptop. Approximately two minutes later, client joined everyone outside and reported that he had heard something strange in his hear. Everyone immediately followed the client back into the home to investigate the strange sound and heard nothing audible. Upon reviewing the digital audio recorder, an anomaly was noted sounding like much like slowed speech. This was the same sound the client said he had audibly heard, but also said he only heard it for a fraction of a second, not as long as what had been recorded on the digital device. The audio was then uploaded to the 2nd investigator’s laptop. Where he was able to quickly isolate the anomaly by increasing the speed by 320%, using GoldWave, which yielded the ADJUSTED recording above, making the voices discernible. Possible Explanations The following explanations are speculative and explore the pros and cons of several possibilities that could potentially explain how the recording was produced and delivered. And it should be understood that the potential explanations listed do not necessarily constitute all possible explanations. 1. The A.V.P. was produced and delivered by the client via a concealed audio player/recorder. This conclusion would explain the 2 seconds of white noise heard at the end, and the close proximity of the voices to the digital recorder. In order for this scenario to be true, the client would have had to: a. Previously produce the anomalous recording using computer audio software and/or studio equipment; b. Use text-to-speech software, voice alteration software, third party actors, and/or a blend of the three; c. Produce the audio on a previous date and retain it hoping for a prime opportunity to deliver it. This would mean having it available on an audio player that was small enough to be concealed in a pocket or kept nearby for quick access when an opportunity arose; Eighteen seconds elapsed between the first investigator going outside and the voice anomaly beginning. This was sufficient time for the client to have retrieved and played an audio player so it would be recorded on the ITSPP digital recorder. One minute and seven seconds elapsed after the voices ended to the time that the client notified the ITSPP investigators That could have been more than sufficient time for the client to have hidden his audio player. Problems with this conclusion: a. The click at the end of the anomalous voices appears in the middle of the white noise. If the click denoted an audio player being turn off (even quietly), the white noise should have ended with the click. It doesn't. b. Sound experiments with a micro-cassette player resulted in one click to play, and two clicks to stop. This is the reverse of what was heard in the recording. The most likely source of the clicks was the computer mouse. c. When asked if he owned a digital recorder, the client had to find it. When he did, it had no batteries in it. It was an old style digital recorder, make/model unknown at this time. (The client could, of course, own another recorder which he didn't reveal.) d. The client-produced hypothesis would necessitate the client's masterminding (or being involved in) perpetrating a hoax. The investigators asked the client directly whether he’d fabricated or hoaxed the anomaly. His response was quick and direct. He stated that he had neither fabricated nor hoaxed the recording. The investigators then judged his response to be honest and believable. e. For the client to have delivered the anomaly as a fabrication, the recording would have to have been previously produced and held for an opportune time to deliver it. This would have required computer and audio skills inconsistent with the client's observed ability as the recording included overlapping voices which indicates the use of at least two audio tracks being mixed down (unless two individuals practiced and recorded it live). f. The return on investment seems very low if the client fabricated or hoaxed the recording solely for the benefit of the two researchers present. In other words, if it was hoaxed by the client, a lot of time and effort was invested with the prospect of little return, and no assurance of an opportunity to deliver it. Pay off for the client would be extraordinarily small in the light of the abundant additional evidence contained within his case files. g. The A.V.P. was produced and delivered by an unknown human third party or parties. 2. Since credible evidence exists that the client has been repeatedly under surveillance and even accosted by unknown human individuals, it is conceivable that the anomaly was produced and delivered by an outside group of people. This group is unknown and could include the U.S. government, factions of the U.S. government, a different government, and/or a private, non- governmental party. a. If a human third party produced the anomalous recording, the means of delivery is unknown. Since the anomalous voices seem to be in close proximity to the digital recorder that captured the audio, the delivery method must have been such that the audio was somehow transmitted to the location. Possible delivery methods include broadcasting audible sound using an ultrasonic sound carrier. The known methods of using ultrasonic sound carriers require line of sight in order to implement; anyone outside of the beam would not hear the sound. Additional methods may exist of modulating glass windows to produce audible sound. b. Using one of these methods may explain why the client only heard portions of the voice anomaly while the digital recorder picked up a strong signal (the client was on the fringe or outside of the beam). c. The human-third-party produced hypothesis would necessitate that someone is masterminding and perpetrating a hoax with the client as a patsy. The goal could be simple disinformation. Problems with this conclusion: a. Similar to Conclusion 1 above, for someone to have delivered the anomaly as a fabrication, the recording would have to have been previously produced and held for an opportune time to deliver it on a moment's notice. There were simply too many variables to the investigator’s visit. It was not known that they would visit until almost the last minute; and no one could have planned on one of them turning on a digital recorder. b. The return on investment seems very low if a human third party fabricated or hoaxed the recording solely for the benefit of the two researchers present. In other words, if it was hoaxed by someone else, a lot of time and effort was invested with the prospect of little return, and no assurance of an opportunity to deliver it. The pay off seems to be non-existent. 3. The A.V.P. was produced and delivered by spirit entities. The clarity of the anomalous recording precludes this conclusion. Electronic Voice Phenomena (E.V.P.) produced by spirit entities has a certain cadence not represented in the anomalous recording in question. Furthermore, E.V.P. are almost never as loud and clear as this captured A.V.P. This conclusion simply is not consistent with empirical evidence obtained in other 5spirit related investigations. 4. The A.V.P. was produced and delivered by extraterrestrial entities, either live or by some other means. a. This conclusion seems to fit the circumstances and the broader picture of associated events. For example, the lead investigator, who is also a respected empath, sensed other entities present in the home just prior to the recording, which could have elicited a response from the curious extraterrestrial entities. This would make the recording a Class 1 A.V.P. (Interactive) on the KM A.V.P. scale. b. If this conclusion is correct, it is uncertain why the E.T.'s allowed their words to be recorded (if we are to believe their words, "Only if we let them."). They might have allowed it simply to give us some evidence of their presence in an effort to perpetuate human knowledge of their race. Problems with this conclusion: a. There is no objective and provable evidence available that extraterrestrial entities exist or were present when the recording was made. Our Conclusion After careful consideration, it is neither possible to prove or disprove the authenticity of the recording. The weight of evidence suggests that Explanation 4 is the most probable, considering that there was no other evidence to confirm extraterrestrial involvement, and thus the least likely. It should be noted that more evidence will need to be discovered in order to collaborate these findings at a later time. We do however, believe this A.V.P. to be very compelling regarding the client’s overall case, and reserve the right to update, or change our findings should any new evidence or discoveries arise. Dissecting an Audio File from a High Profile Case Conducted by In the Shadows Paranormal Project (client specifics remain confidential) Audio Evidence – Case Study Ghost Hunting 101 Original Recording Adjusted Recording
The content of this website is the copyright of World Nexus Publications © 2008-2011