EVP

What is EVP and is it Real?

What Are EVP And Are They Real?
             by
Dr. Richard A. Barker
Copyright 2007, by Richard A. Barker
Courtesy of Big Muddy Ghost Hunters

     This column is intended to be any ongoing discussion about the existence, measurement, and meaning of Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP).  It is intended for the average person who is curious about extrasensory phenomena, and also for the ghost hunting enthusiast who is interested in comparing thoughts and experiences in the manner of an organized inquiry.

"All men by nature desire to know.  An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight" (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1:1).  Thus Aristotle, ever the biologist, let the reader know right away that what we call metaphysics is something that cannot be understood apart from the senses.  Seeing is believing.  The word metaphysics is derived from an Ancient Greek phrase that means literally "after the physics." There is some dispute as to whether historians or Aristotle himself applied this term to the book he wrote after he wrote Physics (from the Greek word for nature), but either way it was intended to mean something sequential, not something spiritual.

In modern times, the term metaphysics is commonly used to indicate something about reality beyond the senses--that is, literally after or beyond nature, also an implication of sequence.  In order to understand what might be beyond the senses, we have to understand what is in the senses.  Philosophers have, for millennia, argued over whether knowledge must come through the senses first (before it becomes knowledge), or knowledge can come from sources other than the senses (like contemplation, revelation, or moral insight).  There is no clear consensus on either side of this disagreement.

In philosophy, metaphysics is concerned with two questions:  1. What is there, or what is reality? (ontology)  2. What is true and valid knowledge, and how is it discovered? (epistemology)  In this column, both questions are important.  Are phenomena like ghosts and EVP real?  And, how do we obtain valid knowledge about these phenomena?

In Metaphysics, Aristotle was seeking to examine the causes of things.  He called knowledge of the causes of things episteme, from which we get the modern philosophical study of epistemology and the predominate goal of science--to discover and to understand the causes of things.  That is what those who study EVP care about first--what causes EVP?  Unfortunately, Aristotle is of little help in answering this question about EVP, but we can follow the advice of David Hume and take the attitude that knowledge of cause is more common sense than abstract thought.

Hume believed that there is no rational basis for understanding causation.  When we see one billiard ball strike another, we attribute the movement of the second to the impact of the first not because we have deduced causation, but because it is consistent with our experience.  Hume thought that we are outfitted by nature to assess causation so that we may live in the world, and that experience is key to understanding causation.  For the modern investigator, if causes can be understood, then we can move on to the question what does the existence of EVP mean?

ME

Let me tell you about myself before we get much further.  You are always appropriate and well-advised to question any and every source of knowledge and information.  It is one thing to have an opinion; it is quite something else to have an educated opinion.  An educated opinion is one that exists within a full awareness of competing theories.  Nothing should be accepted on authority; consider the source of information, and judge its validity based upon its own merits.

If an argument or the presentation of an idea makes sense, then accept it until you discover either a better argument, or a nullification of the information.  Examining the source of information is important insofar as it indicates which methodological flaws and cherished prejudices might lead to faulty presentation or interpretation.

In the social sciences, the bias that a researcher has that will cause unconscious manipulation and misinterpretation of data to achieve an outcome that the researcher expects to find is called the Rosenthal Effect.  It is quite common, and must be guarded against by using what are called experimental controls.  The competent researcher will sketch all theories, methods, and motives involved in the research so that the reader can make an informed decision about the conclusions.  If not skeptical, one should always be wary.  One should always ask "why do this sort of research in the first place?" What does the researcher have to gain from this?

I am a social scientist and theoretician.  I study people as individuals, as social groups, and as societies.  This has been a lifelong pursuit, without break, from my earliest memories of childhood--at this point, more than fifty five years (I am a few months short of my sixtieth birthday).  My pursuit of knowledge in philosophy, history, theology, archeology, anthropology, literature, and political science is conducted with the ultimate goal of understanding human nature and human relations.  All of my degrees are in areas of psychology, and most of my investigative methods are derived from those commonly used in the social and behavioral sciences--although I am a severe critic of the application of logical positivism to some areas of study.  I do not adhere to positivism religiously as some researchers do.  More on logical positivism later.

I am interested not only in what is there, but also in how the beliefs people have about what is there influence their actions and decisions.  Whether or not there are supernatural phenomena is one question; how people act when they believe or do not believe in supernatural phenomena is another question.  I have spent a good deal of my energy sorting out that part of religion which supports social development from that part of religion which truly considers spirituality and the mysteries of life.  More on that later.

My background in the physics of sound comes primarily from my stint in the Navy.  I was a sonar technician, and became what would later be called an ocean systems technician (in the SOSUS system).  I am also a professional musician, and for many years was in charge of the PA system.  That, combined with electronics school and amateur interests in radio, recording, and other electronics, has given me a fair background for understanding what the possibilities are regarding the recording of EVP.  I will never claim to know what causes EVP, but will examine each instance for probable or potential sources.

I have a fairly extensive mechanical background--I do all of my own plumbing and electrical, and have a good deal of experience in metal working, woodworking, masonry, and fixing things.  Up until recently, I did all of my own auto and motorcycle repair (today's cars need expensive machines).  I do all these things because I am cheap and do not wish to pay others to do it for me.

I have had extrasensory experiences in my life, and experiences that I attribute to paranormal phenomena, but nothing that qualifies me as a psychic, a clairvoyant, or a medium.  I am a quintessential observer, the sort of person who would go to a party and be perfectly content watching others.  I pay attention to what is around me, and I learn everything I can soak up from the environment.  I am obsessed with causation, and have always investigated sights and smells and sounds until I am satisfied that I know what caused them.  I have a wealth of experience in causation, and I am rarely stumped.  I have never spent one minute of my life being bored.

I am researching EVP as a result of one of those many happenstances in life that come about as one undergoes transition.  I am retiring, more or less, from over thirty years of teaching in college in a variety of subjects.  I have published five books--two on social and political philosophy, and three didactic novels--and about two dozen articles.  I joined Big Muddy Ghost Hunters because this particular activity is very much in line with interests and abilities I have developed.  I am not doing this because I expect any significant amount of money.

I have accepted my own death, and do not fear it.  In fact, when I die, it will solve a lot of my problems (like auto repair and plumbing).  I am not overly concerned whether or not there is life after death; I figure I will find out when I get there.  Like Epictatus, the famous Stoic teacher, I see no need to worry; if there is life after death, then I will experience it, if not then I will never know.  I do tend to feel that there is life after death, even though paranormal phenomena can be explained without an afterlife.  Perhaps I will address some of those theories in a later column--they are not important for the study of EVP.

I feel am living on borrowed time (for reasons that I will not explain) since 1968.  I have irrefutable evidence (as far as I am concerned) that my wife and I have spirit guides.  We faithfully and consistently defer to the directions they seem to send us in, though we do not receive specific messages or communications.  I also feel that we are fulfilling a providential purpose, though I cannot say what it is.  We do not worry about what it might be, we simply follow the obvious path indicated before us.

I consider myself to be sensitive, but I do not know if I am the sort of person who attracts attention from spirits; I do attract animals and children--the more annoying they are, the more they are attracted to me.  I am a relatively well-adjusted person with a violent, angry streak that never manifests itself in abuse towards others but can emerge when I am threatened or when the toilet is still leaking even though I replaced all the internal parts.  I appear gentle and loving (to those who deserve it) and spirits are more likely to be attracted to the tranquility that surrounds me (most of the time) than they would be to any special gifts.  But then, what do I know?

Methodology

The method one uses to study a phenomenon can make all the difference in understanding it.  To grasp the importance of method, we can begin with our first story--the story of science.

Before the Classic Age of Ancient Greece, the most important question one could ask was "what is the best sort of life to live?" This is the question of ethics.  The word ethic comes from the Greek word ethos which is usually translated as character.  An ethic is the essence of one's character insofar as it is the foundation of choices about what form of life to live and how to live that life in relation to other people.

Ancient Greek philosophers, beginning with Pythagoras (6th Century BCE), changed the question to "what is the nature of the world?" This question is better suited to the ambition to control things, like environment, food sources, health, politics, etc., and assumes that the good life is brought about by increased power and control.  Pythagoras gave us the idea that the nature of world can be understood through the use of numbers and mathematics.  Plato, who thought that the "real" world was accessible only through enlightened contemplation of the Forms, and Aristotle, who thought that the "real" world was knowable through observation that is guided by rational thought, were so influential that their ideas are incorporated into virtually everything studied today.  The studies of physics, biology, political science, psychology, ethics, botany, and many more originated primarily with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

Many modern Christian theological principles, such as the idea that the soul is separate from the body, and the notions of eternal, unchangeable truth and the transmigration of souls, originated with Plato.  Other influences on Christian thought include Stoicism, developed by Zeno in the 3rd Century, BCE, who proposed the idea of a rational force that governs the universe, and the idea that people are different from animals.  If you do not find these ideas shocking, it is only because you are an intellectual child of these Ancient Greek thinkers.

Philosophy and natural science were the same thing up until the 16th Century.  Francis Bacon was so disgusted with the dogmatic devotion to Aristotle by the Church Doctors (Professors) and theologians, that he proposed a Novum Organum (New Method).  He said if we are to progress beyond the point Aristotle reached nearly 2000 years before, we need to do things differently.  For that, he proposed an experimental method, and developed the foundation for the split between science and philosophy.

The 18th Century Age of Enlightenment would draw heavily upon the philosophy of Rene Descartes and the science of Isaac Newton, both of whom insisted that experimental method is the only reliable path to knowledge--more accurately, to the new religion.  Newton, in particular, did not see science as something opposed to Christianity.  In fact, he strongly maintained that his mechanical and gravitational laws actually proved the existence of God.  How else can the universe be so orderly and precise if it was not created by an all-seeing, all-knowing God?  For that, Newton is known as "the Saint of Science." Descartes also offered philosophical proof of God's existence.

The Royal Society in England, which is a society of scientists, was founded in the year 1660.  Within a few years of its founding, the Royal Court received news that a woman in Scotland had given birth to a lamb.  The Court asked the Society to send someone up to investigate the report.  Now, no one actually believed that a woman gave birth to a lamb, but the important issue is this:  Thirty years previous they would have sent a contingent of churchmen to investigate.  The Royal Society, with its repository of the world's most systematic thinkers, was the new authority for answering mysterious questions, and became the institution for promotion and celebration of the achievements of science.

The split between science and philosophy came gradually over the 18th and 19th Centuries, beginning, more or less, with John Locke.  Locke rejected the idea that we can know anything about the true nature of reality--all we can know is what we can experience.  He insisted that if we know anything, it is because we perceived it.  He also supported Descartes' reductionism.  That is, the way to study something is to break it down into smaller pieces, study each piece by observing it, and put the conclusions together into a theory.  Of course, there is much more to it than that, but you get the idea.

By the mid 19th Century, many science-oriented philosophers were fed up with the incessant arguments over metaphysical issues such as the mind/body problem, realism versus nominalism, and idealism versus materialism.  Those who desired to know something positively could see that advances in science and technology would not be gained through the sort of speculation found in the intellectual debates ringing the walls of salons and coffeehouses.  Something had to be done!

Ernst Mach and others proposed that we ignore everything that cannot be observed, and assume that the only knowable world is material in nature, and knowable through the senses.  It is a metaphysical position now used to deny the existence of metaphysics.  Knowledge obtained through revelation, from any nonexperimental method, or from any form of pure thought is rejected in favor of knowledge derived by experimental methods.  Logical positivism was a boon for physical science and technology, but it represented a great loss for the social and other phenomenological sciences.

Logical positivism begins with Descartes' system of critical doubt, and then proceeds directly to reductionism.  It makes sense to break down a block of granite into molecules and atoms to study it, and arrive at some meaningful conclusions about the nature of granite.  It does not make sense to use the same method to study music or poetry.  Breaking down a musical composition into notes and measures to derive a theory about music is going to miss the most important and meaningful elements of the phenomenon of music.  Similarly, the reduction of a technological device such as a television will not yield its most important elements.  The most thorough study of the components of a television set will tell you nothing about the programming or the social purposes of such a "thing".  As Goethe emphasized in his treatise on color, the physics of light and study of the visible spectrum tells us everything about light except what we see.

In studying EVP, some positivistic methods make sense.  For one thing, logical positivism is so pervasive that many people will not consider any proposition for which there is no empirical (observed and measured) evidence--they want data.  Positivism emphasizes reduction and measurement, and it makes sense to isolate and to distinguish EVP from other phenomena and to measure it with recording devices and spectral analysis methods.  Using positivistic methods, we can conclude what EVP are not, but we cannot say with any certainty what EVP are or what they mean.

By the way, nothing can be proven by science.  Without boring you with complicated philosophical explanations, it must be said that science, any science, can do only two things--(1) it can disprove something, and (2) it can support a hypothesis with some degree of confidence.  Anyone who tells you that something has been proven by science is either lying or profoundly ignorant.

Studying EVP

I began the study of EVP with a large degree of skepticism.  Upon hearing that "ghost voices" had been recorded, and having heard some examples, I immediately thought of a dozen different ways in which these "voices" could have found their way onto recordings.  Basically, there are only two ways anything can be recorded: (1) audible sound through the microphone, and (2) electronic signals captured by the recording circuitry.

Audible sound needs three elements to exist at all--a source, a medium, and a receiver.  The source is a source of vibrations in the audible spectrum--roughly between 20 hertz and 20,000 hertz (cycles per second).  Sounds generated at higher and lower frequencies can be recorded, but usually not heard as sound.  Very high frequencies can affect some people who might not know that what is affecting them is sound.  Sound is basically lazy, and moves better and farther through dense media, such as wood, steel, water, etc.  The denser the medium, the better the sound moves.  Sound can be concentrated through any sort of tunnel, and will reflect off the sides of the tunnel and continue for long distances.  Sound can be dissipated by air currents, or other disruptions in the medium, and by other sounds.  Sound will not travel through a vacuum, and space movies where you hear the space ships flying past the screen on the sound track represent a flagrant consumer fraud.

Because sound travels in waves, it follows characteristics of other wave patterns, as do ripples in water.  There can be spots where the waves build up on each other to cause distortion, and spots where the sound waves cancel each other out.  Sometimes sound can be heard distinctly in one spot, and not at all in a spot nearby, these spots are called sound shadows.  Sound travels in straight lines, and will bounce off of hard surfaces to move in a different direction.  The harder and smoother the surface, the better the reflection.  If the surface is rough or porous, the sound will dissipate.  Sound can also bounce off of thermal layers where the density of the medium increases.

Sound travels particularly well over smooth, flat surfaces.  Researchers working near a lake or a pond should be wary of voices coming from across the water.  A conversation in a living room from across a lake can be picked up by sensitive equipment, such as digital recorders.  Ghost voices that can be heard by those present during the investigation (and there are many instances of this phenomenon) are not technically EVP.  EVP are picked up on tape, but not heard by investigators during the recording.  So, sound is not the cause of EVP even though audible voices during an investigation are very important, not to mention thrilling, and should be recorded for analysis.  Researchers must spend a good deal of time analyzing the research site for potential sources of sound, and must control for non-ghostly sources.  I will be experimenting and will report the results of controls that I use.

Radio frequencies are another matter.  The medium is not an issue unless it is dense enough to prevent the radio waves from penetrating.  There still must be a source and a receiver.  Critics of EVP suggest that the electronic circuit of the recording device is picking up radio waves, which is entirely possible.  Radio frequencies, which cover a very broad spectrum, are much more complicated than sound waves as far as understanding the relationship between the source and the receiver.  Atmospheric conditions can produce what radio enthusiasts call a skip--that is, low power transmitters can be picked up half way around the world.  Rather than try to explain the complicated ways in which high frequency waves can be produced and transmitted, I will simply say that there is no way to determine definitively that high frequency transmissions are not sources of EVP.  I am not sure that proof is necessary.

I am personally convinced that EVP exist and that at least some of them are not explainable by theories of stray sound or radio frequencies.  I suggest that all researchers of the paranormal read the book entitled There Is No Death and There Are No Dead by Tom and Lisa Butler.  It is this book that convinced me.  It also convinced me that reasonable research standards can be applied to EVP study which can produce conclusions at least as valid as any in the physical sciences.  There is one thing that a researcher can rely upon to support conclusions of paranormal activity--it is, in a word, context.

The Butlers reported on many incidents of the detection of EVP.  They classified EVP into three categories:  Category One is a recorded phenomenon that anyone can recognize as spoken words with a specific, coherent meaning.  Category Two is a recorded phenomenon that most people can decipher with some coaching.  Category Three is a recorded noise that is unexplained, but that does not convey anything that most listeners would recognize.

Not tied to any specific contextual parameters, Category Three is useless to the paranormal researcher--at least, no more helpful than someone interpreting ink blots or clouds.  It might be useful in psychoanalysis, but does little to establish the meaning of EVP, even if it is a sound genuinely produced by a spirit.  However, if the sound follows immediately after, say, a spoken question, or the entrance of a certain person into the room, then it may be considered as one element of an investigation that supports a conclusion.

If, in the process of the investigation, a recorded voice says "why did you drop the ball during the softball game last Sunday?" or comments on your choice of wearing purple shoes with orange pants, or knows some obscure detail about your grandmother that no one else knows, and these observations are true, it will be hard to explain away your results as stray sound or radio phenomena.  You may have a genuine ghost.

The pervasive theory for how ghosts record their voices is that they "shape" noise in the environment into electronic sounds.  EVP seem to occur more frequently when there is electromagnetic disturbance in the atmosphere, such as a thunderstorms or sun spots.  Some EVP researchers use a television or radio tuned to a blank channel (white noise), and the spirits use the static to form communications.  Digital recorders are thought to have enough internal noise for the spirits to do their thing without outside white noise.  In both cases, it is thought that the communication is generated electromagnetically within a circuit.  This theory, of course, does not explain audible voices at the investigation sight.  Those phenomena are not EVP, and must be explained in other ways.

Ghost sightings tend to be cultural phenomena.  It is not uncommon for people in Ireland, for example, to see ghosts.  At the other end of the spectrum, many people do not believe in ghosts.  When American anthropologist Laura Bohannan was studying the people of Tiv in West Africa in the 1970s, she tried an experiment (something anthropologists are wont to do).  Under the conviction that there are some universal human values, she told the story of Hamlet to the council of elders one rainy afternoon.  She did not get beyond the part where Hamlet sees his father's ghost before her hypothesis was shattered.  She had to use the English word ghost because these people had no word for ghost.

The elders explained to her that she got the story wrong.  There are no such things as ghosts, so what Hamlet saw was an omen.  When she began to tell of the conversation Hamlet had with his father, they informed her that omens can't talk.  Because these people believed that there is no life after death, Hamlet was either a zombie animated by a witch, or he was driven mad by witchcraft.  All of her attempts to explain our idea of ghosts, and most of the details of the rest of the story, were "corrected" by the elders with the admonition that she must have misunderstood, and that she should discuss this with her elders where she returned to her country.

EVP Report No. 1 - 2/5/07

I will generate reports on my EVP activities when there is something to report.  When there is nothing to report, I see no need to take up space with trivia.  I have not yet been involved in an official investigation.  But I have not been resting on my laurels either.

I bought a digital recorder, and have been engaged in some minor experiments to see if I can capture any "ghost voices" in places where they are unlikely to be recorded.  I suspended my activated recorder from my car's rearview mirror by an elastic cord during my everyday commute to work.  The trip is 75 miles one way through rural countryside with small towns, powerlines, CB enthusiasts, and cellphone towers aplenty.  Each leg of the trip takes an hour and a half, and I drove it in silence, recording, for fourteen repetitions in the Fall.  Now that the weather has turned frigid, I will try some more, and I will conduct similar experiments during electrical storms in the Spring to see if I can capture random activity.  Nothing so far.

Sitting in my living room, I have invited spirits to speak to me, and have asked for relatives to respond.  Nothing so far.  Once, I thought I had something, but it turned out to be the gurgling in my stomach that the recorder picked up.  It was talking to me, but it was not EVP.  At this point, I am working with the equipment to establish a baseline of its behavior under normal conditions.

EVP Report No. 2 - 2/10/07 - Analyzing EVP

Communication has a purpose.  Any sound without purpose is just noise.  EVP that consist of random noises are not useful in any respect other than to say that they exist.  Because communication does have a purpose, and because paranormal experts insist that ghosts have the same sort of personality characteristics and behaviors they did in life, then we can assume that recorded EVP worth considering can be assessed in the same way that any other human communications can be assessed--relative to their purposes.

To this point, I have heard several examples of EVP.  Just like human speech, all of them have differences in tone, pitch, rhythm, cadence, inflection, etc.  On one episode of the TV show Ghost Hunters, an EVP was played for the audience that I would consider a legitimate example of evidence which can be used for inclusion in an investigation of the paranormal.  The example was recorded by a homeowner who was experiencing paranormal occurrences in his home, and called TAPS to investigate.  The voice on the recorder was a male voice that very clearly and distinctly said "Seth."  There was nothing before or after this utterance.

The utterance was very consistent with the tone, pitch, cadence, and inflections one would use in making a one word statement.  It was not a question; it was not an exclamation; it was not a proposition; it was not a random sound.  It was a simple statement, and a complete communication.  It did not give much information about the intentions of the communicator, but that is another matter.  I would be willing to consider this EVP, along with other evidence, as support for the conclusion of a spiritual presence.

I have heard other examples of EVP that reminded me of the communications I heard in the military.  Most of them were partial or incomplete communications--fragments--in which none of the words was recognizable.  They had the tone, cadence, and inflections one would hear from back and forth communications on a radio during military operations.  These EVP are suspect for a number of reasons.

First, at least some of them were collected in the Southwestern US.  Beginning at Fort Huachucha in Southeastern Arizona, which is the largest military communications testing range in the world, constant military operations take place north through Arizona and Southern Utah, northwest through Nevada, east to New Mexico and Colorado, and west to Central California, particularly around China Lake.  Not only are various long range and battlefield communications systems being tested regularly, but there are various simulated military operations going on all the time.  Some of these operations involve high speed aircraft, which may be in the right position to leave a radio imprint on your recorder, but will be in and out without you realizing it.  Again, atmospheric and geographic conditions can produce just the right combination of factors for a short period of time.

The military has communications technology that the average person cannot begin to understand.  Based on my experience with black programs, take what you think the best technology is and multiply it by ten.  Crowded radio frequencies and the possibility of interception have forced the military to use transmitting technology that is nothing like what is used by the local radio station or CB enthusiast.

How do you know whether or not you may have caught a stray military radio signal?  For one thing, it will be completely different from the character of a commercial radio station, and somewhat different than what you would hear on a HAM radio or a CB band.  If you cannot tell the difference, you should familiarize yourself with them.  By hook or by crook, arrange to listen to these various types of communications by contacting operators, or by purchasing a receiver.  For another thing, because military vehicles are constantly on the move, the signals you are likely to get will be short or in fragments.  National Guard units make great sport of clicking their transmitter buttons in residential and crowded traffic areas because they know it disrupts commercial radio signals.

Is the EVP a strong, radio-like signal with a particular communications-like sound to it?  Can you understand the words?  Almost all military communications are coded or scrambled.  What is the cadence and voice inflection used?  Does it sound like an officer giving orders?  Does it sound like one soldier communicating information or responses to another?  Military communications are generally short and to the point, often just a few words.  Does it sound like a short and direct, but complete, communication?  Is it a clear response to something you said or did, or did it just appear out of nowhere?

This is not to suggest that radio-like EVP are not legitimate ghost voices.  But we are constantly bombarded with many levels of radio and microwave frequencies, satellite communications, military and amateur communications, as well as cellular technology.  It is not enough to get a recording of a sound when you did not see anyone else around and then call it a "ghost voice".  This conclusion must be accompanied by a thorough and sincere analysis if it is going to be credible and useful for the advancement of knowledge.

EVP that are not clear and easily understandable must be taken with reservation.  Some researchers spend a good deal of time training themselves to understand ghost voices.  That makes a good deal of sense to any white person who has heard old, black blues singers--understanding what they are saying takes a trained ear.  However, one should not want to hear what is not actually there; that is the Rosenthal Effect, and can be the result of a strong desire to communicate with the beyond or to get something marketable.

Even without understanding the words, one can get a clear and consistent impression of the purpose of the communication from the characteristics of the sound that can be easily recognized by yourself and by others.  It is the responsibility of the researcher to be able to classify the sort of communication this utterance is likely to be.  To do that, one must observe and note how people say things in different contexts.  Is it a joke?  Is it a plea?  Redressing?  Praising?  A rejection?  An acceptance?  Etc., etc.

Unfortunately, the only way to know the potential for military communications, or for any other radio interceptions, to show up as EVP is to test.  Since the military is not going to give up equipment for this form of testing, the researcher can try other things.  Place yourself near a military installation, in a public and legal spot, and just turn the recorder on.  Sit and read a book while it runs, or drive around in silence.  If you do not have a military installation nearby, run your recorder when you travel around the vicinity.  You will know if there are audible sounds present that may be picked up by the recorder but are not EVP.  This method establishes a baseline of EVP that are not likely to be ghosts.  For example, I know that my car produces a radio frequency signal which is picked up by the digital recorder.  It is like a high frequency beeping, as a monitor might make.  It is there one hundred percent of the time when the engine is running and none of the time when it is off.  It is not audible except on the recorder.

This all brings me to the specific purpose for this report; I have recorded my first EVP.  I was letting my recorder run as I commuted to work.  It was suspended from the rear view mirror by an elastic cord to prevent any vibrations from being transferred to the microphone except through the air.  I was on US 20, a divided four lane highway, heading west at about 8:30 am on February 8, 2007, about ten miles west of Dubuque.  I was in the vicinity of an industrial area and a truck stop, with a good deal of truck traffic.  There were a few other cars on the road, but no houses or buildings within one hundred and fifty yards.  I was driving normally and without speaking.  The outside temperature was about -7 degrees F (the car has an outside air temperature indicator); the sky was clear, the air was very dry, and there was snow on the ground but not on the road.  There were two cell towers and a microwave relay nearby.

What I got was a woman's voice laughing, and then 3 seconds later uttering three distinct syllables, though the words were not remotely discernable.  It was the sort of thing one might hear from the next room at a crowded party.  It was light and jovial in character, with a cadence one would use to say "who was that?" when one did not expect an answer.  The three syllables were in the following pitches:  The first was approximately the second D above middle C; the second was an octave lower, which would be the first D above middle C; the third was roughly the F# between the two Ds.  It was a complete communication, but clearly only a segment of a conversation.

To that point, I had listened to roughly 25 hours of commute recordings made under similar circumstances, and this was the only EVP I have encountered.  If I had recorded this as part of an investigation, I would have had to seriously consider it as evidence.  It was not radio-like, it was conversation-like.  But it was recorded on an open highway with nothing that would indicate the possibility of paranormal activity about.  I was doing nothing out of the ordinary which would attract the attention of a spirit or a desire for communication.  It was the sort of communication that was clearly directed at a third party and not at me.  I must conclude that it was a stray radio signal, probably a CB or cell phone conversation.  But I cannot say anything for certain except that I recorded it.

Our Investigative Process