Home » Ghost Boxers » Adriana » Ghost Box Voices That Last Too Long

Ghost Box Voices That Last Too Long

by Adriana P.

Calculation of Ghost Box Voices that Last too Long

The ghost box skeptics survive only because of the general public’s willingness to accept their words as “the voice of sanity” without doing their own independent research. The skeptics understand this “cognitive miser” mentality of the general public (here I stress “general public”, not everyone is like that so don’t think I’m accusing you personally), and some skeptics prey on this to the fullest extent possible, because skepticism is their bread and butter — while the general public is satisfied to simply conclude, “They’re the skeptics, they’re the ones who have science on their side, so they must be right.” Right???? Hold on, not so fast. If one actually took the time to do their own thorough independent research they would see that the skeptics have been using our faith in them to keep us in the dark, and that the ghost box researchers are actually telling us the truth: we are really hearing anomalous voices come through our radios!

When I started using the ghost box last September, I knew instantaneously that what I was experiencing was something real, not a figment of my imagination. The more I used it, the clearer my conviction became. I did not need a “scientific method” to know that it was real. It was so powerfully clear, that attempting to apply a “scientific” approach seemed absolutely absurd and superfluous. It would have been like trying to ask a man in a white lab coat to validate that the phone conversation I just had with my friend really did happen. We would never subject our human intelligence and intuition to such an insult. However, since the ghost box refers to voices of unknown origin being broadcast through nothing less than a broken one-way radio, we illogically apply a double standard. We doubt our own ears, our own human intelligence, and our own common sense and intuition of what constitutes communication and intelligent interaction. We can’t believe our ears! We feel lost, unable to wrap our minds and hearts around it… so we give away our cognitive power to someone else. We authorize them to think for us, because we are either too lazy or too afraid to do the work of thinking for ourselves. We make a mountain out of a mole hill, and declare in our own minds that this is such a heavy, complicated matter that it must be handled by nothing less than the “scientific authorities.” Hah! Not so…..

One of my biggest frustrations when I began using the ghost box was that although I knew in my own mind beyond a shadow of a doubt that these anomalous voices were real, I had no way of defending this claim to any “scientific authority” because I did not have a validation method that spoke in their language. The foundation of scientific knowledge is logic and mathematics, so I set out and developed a simple yet powerful validation method, based in elementary mathematics, which proves beyond a shadow of a logical doubt the anomalous nature of many of the voices in my audio validation files. The fact that nothing beyond simple logic and elementary mathematics was needed for this validation, is a testament to the utter reality of these voices.

This method validates an anomalous voice based only on the length of time that a voice persists. The steps of this method are simple, and they are listed below. Further down, each step is discussed in detail.

  1. Find the number of frequencies per second that your model hack scans. *
  2. Divide the number “one” by your result from step one.
  3. Multiply the result from step two by the maximum number of adjacent frequencies through which one broadcast signal bleeds. (Typically this maximum number is 3, but can vary according to your location and radio model). This is the maximum duration of one broadcast signal. Any voice that persists for longer than the maximum duration of one broadcast signal must necessarily be anomalous. There are no logical ifs, ands or buts.

* A typical radio has the following number of frequency steps:

  • AM Band  520 – 1710 = 120 frequency steps
  • FM Band 87.5 – 108.1 = 104 frequency steps

That’s it! But the power of this method becomes apparent in its details. See each step discussed in detail below.

Step One

“Find the number of frequencies per second that your model hack scans.”

How did I do this? I used the stopwatch feature on my Samsung Eternity cell phone. The precision of this stopwatch is to the hundredth of a second, which is the same precision of my audio software “Audacity”. You will want to have this much stopwatch precision not just for its direct correlation to common audio software, but for the dramatic validation it provides, as you will discover further below. So to reiterate: You will need to use a stopwatch that is precise to the hundredth of a second. These days, between cell phone and computer apps, it should not be hard to find.

How many times did I time my ghost box with my cell phone stopwatch? Nine times. Theoretically, the more times the better, but realistically more than about ten scans is overkill. If after about ten scans a consistent picture has not emerged, then either you’re doing something wrong, or the radio is defective. After less than nine scans it became very apparent to me that my ghost box model (the RS 20-125), scans at around 9.5 frequencies per second. The lowest deviation was 9.32 frequencies per second, and the highest deviation was 9.81 frequencies per second, but for the most part the results lingered around the 9.5 mark. I was consistent within a quarter of a second of the average. This consistency was an indication that my timing was accurate (extremely accurate, considering the fact that I was employing nothing more than my hands and my hand-eye coordination), and that the high and low deviations were mainly a symptom of manual variability. A human hand will not be consistently accurate to a hundredth of a second, but a deviation of about one-fourth of a second in either direction is very acceptable.

What was my detailed timing procedure?

  1. Write down your beginning frequency. Begin on any low number frequency and scan to any high number frequency. For the sake of simplicity, don’t scan any farther than the highest frequency on the dial.
  2. Press the ghost box scan button and the stopwatch start button simultaneously.
  3. Let it scan through a few frequencies
  4. Stop the scan and the stopwatch simultaneously.
  5. Write down the ending frequency number and the number of seconds elapsed to the hundredth of a second.
  6. Repeat this procedure eight or nine more times. The more times you do it the better, but again there’s no need to overkill… after a few scans, if your manual timing is decent, a consistent sweep rate will very quickly emerge in your numbers.

Is there a way to calculate the number of frequencies scanned and the sweep rate (the number of frequencies per second) more quickly than by counting on your fingers, or using pen and paper?

Yes. I used Excel. In cell A1, I typed the beginning frequency on the dial, “87.5”, then in the cell immediate below it I type the formula “=A1+.2” (or A1+10 if you’re using the AM dial). Then I dragged this formula down until all the frequencies, down to the highest one on the dial, were listed in a column. Then I looked at my beginning and ending frequencies that I timed and highlighted the Excel cells from the beginning to the ending frequency. When you highlight the cells, Excel tells you at the bottom of the screen how many different cells you just highlighted, and that’s how you find out how many frequencies you scanned in the time elapsed. Then you divide the number of seconds elapsed by the number of frequencies scanned, and that’s your sweep rate to the hundredth of a frequency.

After you’re satisfied with your list of sweep rates, take the smallest one of them and use it as the figure you plug into step two. Why the smallest one? Why not the average of the sweep rates?Well, my personal preference is to use the smallest one because it’s the safest. And as it turns out, by doing that, I’m not giving away more than one hundredth of a second to the skeptics on the “maximum duration of one broadcast signal”. I could even, just for the heck of it, say that my ghost box scans only 8 frequencies per second, which is a ridiculously low figure… and still I would only be giving away 6 hundredths of one second to the skeptics. Yes, that’s how highly provable anomalous voices are by this validation method!

Step Two

Divide the number “one” by your lowest sweep rate from step one. This gives you the time duration of one single frequency, to the hundredth of a second.

Step Three

Multiply the time duration of one frequency by the maximum number of adjacent frequencies which a broadcast signal occupies (typically this number is 3). That’s the maximum duration of one broadcast signal. Any voice lasting longer than that is anomalous, and it becomes the burden of the skeptic to debunk, no longer yours to prove.

You can find the maximum number of adjacent frequencies through which one broadcast signal bleeds by simply going through the whole dial slowly, and listening with your ears. Many people will find that no broadcast signal occupies more than three adjacent frequencies, and even when it occupies that many frequencies, the sound volume and clarity is different in each one. In some locations and/or with some lower quality radio models, this maximum bleedthrough number may be larger. It is sufficient to say that this number is generally “three”, and that you need to re-determine this number each time you’re using a new radio model or holding a box session at a new location.

Other Remarks About this Validation Method

On the AM dial, especially in the evenings, Clear Channel will send the same broadcast signal in multiple places on the dial. This means that you will need to use extra caution on the AM dial, if you are claiming that an anomalous voice repeats. However, if for example, you hear the same voice twice in close proximity while scanning the AM dial, this validation method can come in handy in determining whether or not it was stray radio signal or anomaly. If an instance of that voice exceeds the maximum duration of one AM broadcast signal, then that particular instance was anomalous, however this method alone does nothing to validate the second instance, if the second instance of the voice is too short in duration. In addition, I don’t know how often on our airwaves the following scenario happens but: In case Clear Channel broadcasts the same broadcast signal twice in a row, on 6 adjacent frequencies, then in Step Three you will simply have to multiply the duration of one frequency by the number 6 instead of the number 3. It will reduce the number of files you will be able to validate with this method, but the remaining validated files will be untouchable.

To the skeptics: Have fun trying to debunk this!

There is currently a working chart of this methodology located here.  If you have a hacked radio Ghost Box and wish to add data to this experiment, please email itc@itcvoices.org.

, , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. […] one frequency.  This chart is based upon the idea that Ghost Boxer Adriana P. came up with in her article on this site and it is the best method to calculate sweep rates for your shack-hack ghost […]

Have Your Voice Heard! Leave a Reply.