Ascertaining Meaningful Communication From a Ghost Box
By Tim Woolworth, 2011
What is Ghost Box Meaningful Communication?
One of the questions I am often asked is how I can determine what is actual communication coming through a ghost box and what is just radio noise. This is a question that needs to be answered and until now, I have yet to read any article on the topic that is substantive. It is my hope that this article will start a discussion on how we can codify the communication that comes from a ghost box versus communication that is not.
To begin this discussion, I should define meaningful communication. For the purposes of this article, ghost box meaningful communication shall be defined as: Any communication which involves a call and responses pattern of communication that is received in one voice pattern or more.
When we receive communications, their structure often consists of fragmented sentences (“Help them find”), individual words (“Help”), or broken language (“Returned he did”). Sadly, I have yet to record actual “communication” as would be expected by everyone else outside of the ghost box community. The day that I receive a sentence, even simple in structure and intent, like “Hi Tim. I hope that you are doing well today?” in a singular voice will be a day that I will jump for joy, especially if it is followed up with a likewise valid sentence in the same voice.
This has yet to happen for me, and I doubt it has happened for anyone in this community because it would be the strongest evidence recorded thus far. So we have to deal with what we receive. So to address this, I will consider each of the three types listed above in conjunction with the definition of meaningful communication I have set forth.
Before I continue, I should clarify why an idea of meaningful communication needs to be applied to ghost box communications. As a ghost boxer, I am under the impression, as are many others, that in the chaos of raw audio that results from unfettered sweeping through a radio band, communication from the “other side” is not only present, but represents sentience attempting to communicate verbally with the living.
The evidence for this is staggering. In spite of the evidence present, there is an argument used by paranormal investigators and skeptics alike which says that ghost boxes are simply radio broadcast fragments and therefore as a tool to talk to the other side, ghost boxes are circumspect at best.
At face value, this is true and it is a devastating argument against ghost box communication.
This is why I chose to write this article: without an idea of what constitutes meaningful communication, there is no standard by which ghost box communication can be judged.
In other forums, ghost boxers, both seasoned and new, often post audio as evidence which is circumspect. The audio is not clear, or it is over-processed, or simply posted as a single word without context. I have stated it before, and I will state it again, context is everything and it helps to both create and clarify meaning of a ghost box communication.
Keeping this is mind, broadcast fragments are often misinterpreted by ghost boxers to be meaningful communication. There are instances where a broadcast fragment can serve as a direct response to a question. While certainly intriguing, I am still left to wonder whether or not these responses are anything more than coincidence.
Because of the extended possibility of broadcast fragments, I am loathe to consider any one word responses as evidence unless it is either 1) a meaningful communication embedded within a strand of other meaningful communications, 2) a ghost boxer’s, or tech’s, name, or 3) a direct response.
Meaningful communication embedded within a strand of other meaningful communications can lend a lot of credence to a singular word communication when they extend past singular responses.
Ghost Boxer – “Is anybody there”
Ghost Box – “Paul”
Ghost Boxer – “Paul are you there?”
Ghost Box – “Yes.”
In this example, there is a pattern of meaningful communication that exists between the ghost boxer and the voice coming through the ghost box. This is a call and response type of communication and these are some of the best communications that we receive. Even though the responses are merely singular words, they are direct answers and with direct answers there is evidence of sentience. This type of back and forth present much stronger evidence than a simple direct response that happens only once.
There are other times when a ghost box calls out the name of a ghost boxer or the names of others present in the room at the time of the session. These instances are astounding. My name is called out all the time and I am quite used to it at this point. It does still intrigue me when the nickname my family bestowed upon me is used, or my last name is called out.
When I am ghost hunting, I am in a group of people and when several of my colleagues names are called out, the odds have to be staggering that several names of people present in the room would be called out – and this happens with almost every ghost hunt.
The name of a Tech is also very intriguing. I have a gentleman named “Tom” who has been with me since I started ghost boxing. He shows up at every session, and he even showed up during a session I conducted on the other side of the world in Australia. When you have ghost boxed long enough to hear a name is uttered repeatedly, in the same voice, in several locations, then I consider any subsequent utterance of this name to be evidence even without being embedded in a call and response pattern.
Simply put, singular word ghost box communication cannot be presented as evidence unless stringently adhered to protocols are put in place to judge whether or not it has meaning. Once again, all evidence should be presented in context with the communication surrounding it or else it cannot be judged as meaningful.
Unfortunately, these means that all clips of “Hi” are, to be necessarily pointed, worthless, unless it says something like “Hi (insert your name here.)”
This strict adherence to one word communication value also rules out attention grabbers like “help,” “ghost,” or “dead.” To ensure that these words are of value they must first be heard in real time and the ghost boxer must attempt to implement them in a question to illicit another response meaningful to the original utterance. Without this follow-up call and ghost box response, meaningful communication for single words cannot occur and necessarily must be ruled out as broadcast fragments.
To be blunt, broken language can only be considered as evidence if it is presented in the same voice otherwise it is easily dismissed as radio broadcast and therefore without merit. By necessity, broken language structure must consist of more than one word in the communication, and can be considered as strong evidence if presented in a meaningful communication.
That being said, what is considered broken language? Word order.
In English, we use the Subject Verb Object (SVO) structure in our communications – “Steve creates boxes.” In several other languages, the Subject Object Verb (SOV) structure is used – “Steve boxes creates.” At other times, there are Object Subject Verb (OSV) clauses in language – “Boxes Steve creates;” also known as “Yoda-speak” but is very common in German. The variations go one from there….
So how do we receive these communications during a session? It is curious but I think a lot of it has to do with the sentience that is communicating the sentence. A phenomenon that has been present in EVP, and now GBC, is the omnipresence of communication in a language understood by the observer. This is not to say that foreign languages do not come through the boxes, but the majority of the communication is in a language understood and for most ghost boxers reading this article, this means English is prevalent. This has been demonstrated with EVP Maker when only foreign language communications are used for the program and English communication is received.
I think that since the Others are of all nationalities, there must be some that communicate with us who did not speak English as a native language.
Also consider that all thought is language. Everything around you is defined by language – everything you see is defined by a thought image…and all thoughts are language. You think, feel, and dream in language.
These ideas combined lead me to wonder if broken language ghost box communication is an artifact of the transference of thought images from their side to ours when the thought image originator is not of English speaking origin. Somehow, there is a translation that takes place which conveys the thought image in English, something I cannot define in the slightest, but from hereon out I will call an etheric translator.
Therefore broken language may be an indicator that etheric translation is taking place to convey thought images from an Other of a different nationality.
Regardless of the reason why broken language occurs, it does occur. For us to consider it as evidence, I will reiterate here (since I meandered a bit) that broken language can only be considered valid communication if it is received in the same voice otherwise it is too easily dismissed as radio broadcast.
If you receive a communication that consists of broken language like “Here speak Paul is,” then it needs to be dismissed unless all of the words are spoken with the same voice. Otherwise, it could simply be words forming a statement from several radio fragments and hence could be ruled out as meaningful communication by anyone who wished to do so. But, if all of the words are in the same voice, then it demonstrates how a communication can be received by our ears as being syntactically wrong – possibly due to etheric translation.
This type of communication is very common and is easily dismissed as radio broadcast fragments by the skeptical world and can also be considered the most problematic type of all ghost box communications.
One of the problems we have with fragmented sentences is that by definition, they are fragmented. This is the same type of communication one would expect to receive when scanning across several radio frequencies. Once again, as with all communications, endeavoring to illicit a call and response pattern for fragmented sentences to create meaningful communication strands is imperative to ensure that said fragments are not merely radio broadcasts.
There are countless posts on the ghost boxing forums that consist of fragmented sentences that are nothing more than radio broadcasts. One of the best ways to determine whether the communication in question is a stray radio broadcast fragment is to examine the fragment itself.
Does it come across with the same pitch, tone, and timbre from start to finish? Then is it probably not a meaningful communication.
Is it clearer than other ghost box communications that you have received during the same session? Once again, then it is probably not a meaningful communication.
Did the fragment in question have anything to do with a question you had asked, or any responses you have heard in real time? If not, the it is probably not a meaningful communication.
This being said, there are several times during a ghost box session where meaningful communication is received via a fragmented sentence. Sometimes a voices falters in the middle of a communication, or only a few words come through. This could be a problem with how the other side communicates with us; or it may be a psychical problem.
I think that there is a psychical link when communication occurs. Sometimes it is stronger than other times. This is how we sometimes receive answers to questions we ask a milliseconds after the answer has already been given. This is how we can hear communications mired in the background noise and facilitate meaningful communications in real time. I believe that some people are more psychically gifted than others and therefore receive better communications as a whole. I also believe that the more you practice, the more that this ability is developed.
If, in fact, a psychical connection exists between communicator and the other side, then fragmented communication is problematic. One of the crutches that skeptics always use is the fact that we “interpret” the communication and therefore steer the way our recorded communications are to be perceived. We hear a fragmented sentence, but because a psychical bridge exists, we can fill in the blanks to facilitate meaningful communication during a session. This makes each session uniquely personalized, and by definition of scientific rigor, non-evidence.
Evidence as a Whole
We will never be able to present our evidence scientifically because there are too many uncontrollable variables, and the same communication cannot be repeated ad infinitum.
So, in presenting our evidence, we should attempt to present our evidence at all times in context. To present a word is worthless without surrounding context because it could be considered as a broadcast fragment without its contextuality. All communications that are valid (at least in my experience) tend to come in waves of communication and the surrounding audio is very valid but is often missed. Not all communications are in the same voice throughout and strings of individual words spaced out over time create a longer communication which is often missed by ghost boxers.
In conclusion: evidence presented as meaningful communication is the best evidence we have.