darkobjects.com technologies and experiments

The Ghost Box

Dr. Shari Stacy

Frank Sumption invented a controversial device in 2002 now known as “Frank’s Box.” It is a “real time” EVP device, which works like a telephone to those on the other side. Sumption does not sell his invention, but many techies out there have followed his lead and come up with their own versions of the “Ghost Box.” Sumption has made over 25 models of the device and provides information on the Internet for those wishing to build their own “Frank’s Box" in the EVP_ITC Yahoo group which he also moderates. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EVP-ITC/ . The plans for Frank's invention can also be downloaded in pdf format .

How does it work? Radios are modified to continuously scan AM and FM frequencies.

In theory this aids in communication with the spirit world (ghosts. elementals or aliens).

The “Ghost Box” had recent positive exposure on THE GHOST ADVENTURES Halloween Special (Oct. 30-31, 2009) on The Travel Channel. The GA crew had several immediate audible responses to their questions and Zak claimed the group was making television history with the box. (It should be noted that the Paranormal State team has used a similar device as well on their A&E show.)

Why get one? If it works, the “Ghost Box” is a serious step beyond using digital recorders to capture EVPs (electronic voice phenomena), as the Box could provide immediate feedback, allowing the paranormal investigator to concentrate on locations were obvious activity is happening. The Box should be used in conjunction with a digital recorder so ghost hunters can listen to the noise/ responses later and have evidence to share with others. Noises? Yes, lots of static and ‘popping’ sounds often can be heard using some models of such a modified radio.

Critics warn that sometimes such a “sweeping” of radio frequencies can yield snippets of radio talk and some could mistake this for messages from the other side. This is one reason why recorders must be used in conjunction with the Box for analysis later. Also, investigators should use good quality EMF detectors along with the Box and recorder to add further validation to the results.

More study needs to be done on the “telephone to the dead,” certainly. We have just ordered one of our own from Ebay (for $65, a higher range price; many are less and some more). Please check back on our site in the upcoming months as we discuss our own experiences with the “Ghost Box.”

The Free Cross-Platform Sound Editor Audacity
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

Clayton Trout

Voted Best Project for Multimedia in the SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards 2009, Audacity is a free cross-platform editor for recording and editing sounds. Available for Mac OSX, Windows, GNU/ Linux and other operating systems, Audacity is packed with features and is user friendly.

Audacity was developed in 1999 by Dominic Mazzoni, now a software engineer for Google, Inc. No longer the primary developer, Mazzoni still guides and manages the project that is currently maintained by a team of volunteers.

For EVP work, Audacity provides an excellent clean up tool that removes background noises; it has a cut/copy/paste feature for isolating intriguing audio clips, unrestricted redo and undo editing on an opened project, providing swift editing of large files.

audacity scrren shot

To assist with recognizing an anomaly, Audacity provides a great spectrogram mode that visualizes frequencies and, for a more detailed analysis, a plot spectrum command.

Speaking from experience, I find Audacity renders clear and impressive results. I originally used Audacity just for EVPs, but after toying around with its many features, I began using the tool to create and manipulate soundtracks for some of my videos.

I use Sony digital recorders (ICD-PX720 and ICD-MX20DR9) for evp work and have never encountered a problem transferring or converting the files over to a recognizable Audacity format.

Tutorials are available from Audacity’s website at http://audacity.sourceforge.net/manual-1.2/tutorials.html (also includes a handy page explaining sound waves) and a search on YouTube brings up a number of helpful tutorials.
While Audacity has many appealing attributes that would lure the most experienced paranormal investigator, the program’s most attractive feature at first glance might be that it is free. Whether you are a novice ghost hunter, a start up paranormal group on a tight budget, or a skilled investigator, Audacity doesn’t disappoint.

(The author includes Audacity in his personal arsenal of audio analyzers and drew from this experience for this article as well as Audacity’s website, Dominic Mazzoni’s site, and YouTube.)

The Science of Orb Photos

Dr. Mark Kimura

Paranormal Research Investigations (PRI) had an experimental session to photograph "orbs". Members of the group suspected that the paranormal anomalies often called orbs, which many people see in photographs, are, in fact, optical phenomena; that is, reflections from airborne particles. Group members attempted to validate this assumption by replicating orbs in photographs using materials prepared by the group.

An orb is considered “typical” when it is round, white and concentric circles are visible on the inside. Below are three photos in which "typical" orbs are pictured.


Photo 1a	1b	1c

Photos 1a and 1b were taken at two Learning Light Foundation major events in 2005. Photo 1c was taken some time in 2005, at night, outside of the Learning Light Foundation building. PRI investigators noticed that the spatial pattern of some orbs is similar to "interference fringe" formed by a small particle when it is illuminated by a laser.

Researching further, PRI investigators found a few web sites on orbs that point out:

1. Camera flash units are almost always used when orbs are seen in photographs.
2. More orbs have been seen in photos since digital cameras have become popular.
Furthermore, it should be noted that PRI investigators have not discovered in their photos any orb that is partially hidden behind an object.

The PRI investigators assumption was that if orbs are indeed interference fringes, it should be possible to replicate them by taking pictures of small particles such as water spray or powder.

The Experiment

Figure 1

PRI had an ad hoc meeting on August 13, 2006. The meeting and experimental photo session took place in the kitchen at the Learning Light Foundation. Additionally, photos were taken in the Betty Easily Hall. The equipment for the experiment was two plastic, hand-spray bottles filled with tap water and three compact digital cameras.

The setting for the experiment is shown in Figure 1. First, the camera was turned on and held still. Then water was sprayed into the air directly in front of the camera to ensure that there would be water droplets very close to the camera. Photos were taken while the water spray was still in the air.

Approximately 30 photos were taken. Photo 2 is one the photos.

Photo 2

It is difficult to see if the white "dots” in Photo 2 are analogous to the orbs in Photos 1a, 1b and 1c. The following photo 3a is an enhanced image of Photo 2. Photos 3b and 3c are enhanced images from the set of photos taken during the experiment.


Photo 3a	3b	3c

These optical entities share the same qualitative attributes with the orbs in Photos 1a, 1b and 1c--circular shape with multiple concentric circles inside. This provides some strong evidence that the orbs with similar attributes are also optical products from small particles.

The Theory

It is known that the CCD or CMOS sensors in digital cameras are more sensitive to infrared than human eyes. In fact, human eyes cannot see infrared lights but digital cameras can. CCD or CMOS sensors are the elements in digital cameras that are equivalent to film in traditional cameras. In Photo 4, the emitter of a remote control is photographed while pushing a button on it. This picture proves the above statement. It also shows that digital cameras register infrared lights as white light.

Photo 4

PRI investigators performed their experiment to answer the following question. Is it a realistic assumption that digital cameras can photograph fringe patterns from airborne particles that exist in nature that cannot be seen by the human eye?

Researchers in the field of the holography of small particles use an index called "Far-Field Number" defined as follows:

N is the Far-Field Number, Lambda is wavelength of light; z is the distance between particle and camera (*1); and d is the diameter of the particle.

It is known that when N is in the range between 2 and 8, we observe clear fringe patterns.

It is also known that:

(1) The wavelength of infrared ranges from 1 um (micron) to 1000 um (=1mm).
(2) The sizes of airborne particles, especially windblown dusts, range from approximately 2 um to 20 um.

Assuming that the wavelength of the infrared that digital cameras capture is 1 um since it is the closest to visible light. We also use N=5, which would yield very clear and "typical" concentric circles.

Given the conditions above, we can estimate the distance between the camera and the particle. Table 1 shows the relationship between the particle size and the distance from the camera.

Table 1: Particle size (d) and distance from the camera (z) under N=5 and Lambda =1um
d (um)	z (mm)
2	0.02
20	2
100	50

This result indicates that in order for airborne particles to yield fringe patterns caused by infrared light, the particles must be very close to the camera. However, fine water droplets can yield fringe patterns caused by infrared light when they are a few inches away from the camera. This explains why orbs are never hidden behind other objects--except other orbs: it is because the particles are so close to the camera that there cannot be any object between the particles and the camera. It also explains why photographers do not see particles when taking photos: it is because the particles are too small for the human eye to see.

*1) The distance between particle and camera should actually be optical path length due to the presence of the lenses.

Conclusion

This experiment suggests that orbs that have circular patterns are likely to be interference fringes caused by reflected infrared from the camera's flash unit. Approximately 90% of the orbs seen in photos taken during past PRI investigations are of this type.

Another orb phenomenon is daylight color orbs: that is, photos taken during the day in which colored orbs can be seen. As for daylight color orbs, they could be lens flares. PRI has not successfully replicated daylight color orbs in their photography experiments.

In conclusion, in order for an orb photo to be classified as potentially paranormal, it needs to meet the following criteria:

1) A film SLR camera with a lens hood is used
2) No flash is used
3) There are no circular patterns inside the orb

Reprinted with the permission of Dr. Mark Kimura thebutterflygift.com

Return to top of page