Volume 1 contains some random samplings, of responses we've gathered. Samples have been gathered using various ghostbox apps, chosen based on their functionality (radio scan, not generated responses, white noise availability etc.) and required internet. Thus guaranteeing more genuine responses. **An interesting note; some apps had a language setting, we had set it to scan only english stations and frequently heard other languages come through. Occasionally EVP responses are heard, if you listen closely, you can tell the difference. Though sometimes slight, the tone, length and proximity of the voice is different for EVP vs Ghostbox responses.
We used these samples to try and show the range of responses we've gathered. These have been gathered over many different sessions. Not every session garners good results, sometimes we get a few, to no responses. In later videos we will show that some sessions get weird, based on whatever is responding at the time.
As to what is responding. The dullest and least complicated answer would be; nothing.
That we are simply gathering coincidental, responses whose chances of occurring are bound to happen.
​After listening to hours, upon hours of recordings, I'd have to conclude that; the simplest answer of coincidence is rather impractical.
The varying range of responses and personalised nature that accompanies many of them, gives me the need to explore further. There are too many variables that do not fit into the theory of coincidence.
Examine the responses in this video. The first clip outright say Stan's name (the speaker of this session) followed by "I see you" The chance of a correct name is possible but slim and it follows with a response, that I doubt would be words frequently heard on a radio station.
We try many things during sessions, including asking uncommon questions. In the second clip, you can see that despite the odd question, we did get a fitting response. The third clip highlights responses to a spontaneous occurrence, during a session. A clumsy action had generated responses that comically fit the situation.
The chances of these being random occurrences are getting slimmer.
I included this fourth clip, because of it's humanistic simplicity. Perhaps more so because I would assume that scientifically, a yes/no response would bring about a better result for data collection. To me though, being a direct opposite of the question and that the tone of the voice is also quite opposite to the answer, this speaks more volumes to me than a simple yes/no response. It also has a rarer chance of occurring. Especially when you factor in, that out of over 100 sessions, this was the one and only time we asked this question.
The subsequent clips show more responses that are appropriate and are very human in nature. I've also included a longer clip, so you don't think all our sessions just have these tiny chance recordings. We do get many appropriate responses and are frequently able, to have short conversations. The problem occurs with being able to hear responses properly. A majority of sessions, we cannot hear over 90% of responses coming through and do not realize that the session was successful, until after listening in post. This can hinder out progression of finding answers. More in depth questioning is difficult, when you don't even know if the first one is answered.
As we continue out sessions, we will be experimenting with many apps, devices and methods. Hopefully we can find something that generates clearer responses.
So what is on the other end?
These samplings were very human like and I would lean more towards the, spirit of a human theory. Though, as we will show you in subsequent videos, the possibility of alien, AI or even other dimensional communication, is just as viable as talking to the dead.
Volume 1
In House Haunting