Poltergeist Breakthrough? JSPR publishes Dr Barrie Colvin’s research

Firstly, what can one say but sorry it has been so long. Becky was made redundant, and is now shuttling between Cheltenham and Derby, and I am ridiculously busy — something which should ease up about mid to late August.  I will of course be trying to catch up on what has been happening in the world of spooks in the meantime, and hope to keep the blog interesting.

However, readers will recall that in my previous comments on this or my personal blog I referenced the fascinating work of Dr. Barrie Colvin. At that time the work was unpublished — and even in my Paranormal Review review of the SPR Study Day No.58 on Poltergeists: Then and Now I refused to reveal any details of the hypothesis  until the journal article was out. Well now it is, in the April 2010 Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, and I want to briefly discuss it here.

I’m involved in an internet debate on a Dawkins successor forum, http://www.rationalskepticism.org (Richard Dawkins closed his own forum back in February, and this is one of the communities set up by emigres from there) where I had briefly mentioned Dr Colvin’s work in passing. Once the JSPR piece was published i wanted to discuss it more fully — and owing to tiredness and time pressures I may have made a hash of it, but I wrote a brief precis of key themes, which I thought may interest readers of this blog. However really you should read the original article, because it may be the single most important thing written on the poltergeist phenomena so far this century, in fact it probably is.  It is ‘ The Acoustic Properties of Unexplained Rapping Sounds’ in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [2010] Vol 73.2 Number 899 pp 65-93.”

At the time I last brought up Dr.Colvin’s research it was unpublished: now fortuitously it is in print, and we can discuss it in a little more depth.
Remember, this is not a lab experiment. Even if it was, we would want a plethora of different microphones to rule out the possibility that the equipment, not the sound itself, was causing the unusual acoustic characteristics. Instead we are looking at ten recordings from ‘the field’, from cases in which Dr Colvin was for the most part not involved – Andover (1981) being the exception. The other cases which provided recordings were

Sauchie, Scotland (1960) – from Broadcasting House, from the BBC recordings taken at the time.

http://www.p-e-g.co.uk/Web/Articles/ART … icle23.htm

has more on the case for those not familiar with it – Owen, A.R.G. Can We Explain the Poltergeist? New York: Helix Press / Garrett Publications, 1964 gives a full account by the principle investigator.

Thun, near Bern, Switzerland (1967) The recordings were taken from a CD.

http://www.last.fm/music/Okkulte+Stimme … iale+Musik

Schleswig , Switzerland, (1967) taken from a CD.

http://www.last.fm/music/Okkulte+Stimme … iale+Musik

Pursruck, Germany (1971) – from a recording by Prof. Hans Bender (16-bit stereo, 44100Hz)

Ipiranga, Brazil (1973) – recording by Guy Lyon Playfair taken during the IBPP investigation. More on the case can be found in Playfair’s 1975 book The Flying Cow.

La Machine, France (1973) – recording by Dr Alfred Krantz.

Enfield, England (1977) – from original reel to reel tapes, which was running “at the rather slow speed of 15/16 of inch per second” (Colvin 2010); recording taken by SPR investigator Maurice Grosse. A recent Channel 4 documentary on the case well worth watching can be seen here —

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/inte … oltergeist

– you can see the equipment used and context.

Andover, England (1981) – investigated by Dr Colvin.

Santa Rosa, Brazil (1988) – taken from a recording made of a television broadcast (by TV Globo) on the case.

Euston Square, England (2000) This case has recordings by both Maurice Grosse and Mary Rose Barrington available.

Ten cases, none recent, because recordings of acoustic phenomena associated with poltergeists are by their nature difficult to collect: one need a poltergeist after all! The two Swiss cases are from a digital CD recording commercially available of recordings of parapsychological phenomena – it is impossible to say to what extent they have been edited and processed, so I would say they were VERY weak evidence. The Brazilian cases rely on recordings taken by Guy Lyon Playfair at the time, and by him off the TV, and he was present at Enfield – yet fraud seems unthinkable, given the dates, unless he somehow had access to very high end studio equipment and knowledge of acoustics in a pre-digital sound age. Therefore, I think that so long as we trust Dr Colvin’s acoustic analysis, the sound signatures he claims to detect in his varied collection of poltergeist sounds are authentic. Colvin’s claims are checkable — at least some of these recordings – the Enfield sounds and the two from the CD, and possibly if you are willing to approach the BBC Sauchie – are available in their original form to interested independent parties wishing to check the results. I suspect someone with appropriate acoustics knowledge could acquire copies of all the recordings by request to the SPR. (http://www.spr.ac.uk)

Adobe Audition http://www.adobe.com/products/audition/ was used for the analysis, in case anyone fancies trying a replication. I do favour a hands on approach as you all know by now!

So what does Colvin claim to have found? Well let’s start with a normal waveform. It follows a characteristic pattern – a wave form showing a sharp rise in amplitude or immediately to maximum amplitude, followed by a gradual decrease to zero. Adobe Audition has a free trial, but there is plenty of freeware on the web you can download which allows you to experiment with banging various substances yourself. I did so, analysing some sounds submitted by Wayne Morris from his paranormal investigation at Landguard Fort, Felixstowe last year, and found that the banging noises there followed the same type of acoustic signature I could get by kicking the wall or banging my desk – the above pattern, suggesting a normal explanation for those (non-poltergeist) sounds. Simple experimentation with a large number of substances demonstrated that the pattern is consistent, and that Colvin’s comment on this is completely correct. I encourage everyone reading to try this for themselves, to familiarise themselves with the standard way the amplitude and frequency can be analysed and the common pattern one sees.

Colvin gives a couple examples of frequency ranges in mundane sounds – a hammer hitting an oak desk gives a frequency band of mainly 50Hz to 300Hz – a teaspoon on a crystal glass 300Hz to 3000Hz, with a decay of amplitude lasting three seconds. What one might expect in short. However, once again I strongly suggest a few minutes experimentation at home, and posting the results??? Really, do try!

So how do the acoustic properties of the raps in the ten cases in question vary? They show a consistently odd rise in amplitude, a waveform that slowly rises rather building to a sudden peak and then falling away. One can test this on the knocks from the Channel 4 shows recordings from Enfield I guess, or armed with some money, order the CD Colvin took the Swiss cases from: I have too date done neither. Given the fact the JSPR article is clearly copyright, I shall simply reproduce just two of the figures here, showing a knock deliberately made by Grosse at Enfield as he tried to replicate the noises,and one of the anomalous raps…


So why do the waveforms show these unusual characteristics? Colvin thought of a possibility, which shows his critical thinking and thoroughness —

Dr. Barrie Colvin, [i]JSPR[/i] 73.2, Number 899, April 2010 wrote:
One of the possible normal explanations put forward to explain the results is that certain types of microphones may give rise to the anomalous results because of their inherent qualities and mode of operation. A microphone is simply a sensor that converts sound in to an electrical signal. The most common types consist of a thin membrane that vibrates in response to sound pressure.

I actually did not know much about how microphones work. This was helpful!

Dr. Barrie Colvin, [i]JSPR [/i]73.2, Number 899, April 2010 wrote:
This movement is subsequently translated in to an electrical signal using one of several techniques. Most examples use electromagnetic induction, capacitance change, piezoelectric generation or light modulation to convert the mechanical vibration of the signal to an electrical signal. The question that arises is relation to a short impulse such as a rap is whether or not there could a be a delay between production of the sound and vibration of the membrane. Could the inertia of the membrane, particularly with microphones dating back to the 1970’s, lead to a relatively slow increase to maximum amplitude when subjected to a short burst of acoustic energy?

This is why I suggested in a lab set up we would require several microphones, of different makes, models and manufacture. Colvin experimented making raps with a number of microphones dating from 1959 (including the Phillips EL3549A & the EL3782 with impedance 583 ohms) to present day microphones, looking at the waveforms, to falsify this hypothesis. Again, with old microphones common in attics if my house is anything to go by, I suggest interested parties can do at home…

However there is another reason to believe the results are not an artefact of the microphones. Three of the recordings include the investigators making their own raps. These investigator produced raps possess the normal waveform, not the slow rise in amplitude associated with the “poltergeist knockings”. As such, we have an inadvertent control, which demonstrates the microphone was NOT the source of the unusual waveforms.

Colvin has managed to find similar acoustic waveforms to those recorded in these ten cases – in recordings of seismic activity. His paper gives two examples – a recording of an earthquake at Ascension Island in 2007, and a British Geological Survey recording of a seismic event at Folkestone in 2009, described as being “like an explosion”. Colvin theorises that the sound signatures associated with the poltergeist events imply they are caused by a sudden release of tension or alteration in the substance of an object, not with as one would assume a rapping of one thing on another. An intriguing suggestion, but clearly one that requires further high quality recordings to test adequately.

It’s a fascinating article, one of the best I have read in a long while. I want to experiment now, and above all to try and collect more recordings from cases to give to Dr Colvin. I strongly suggest all reader of this blog try to lay their hands upon the latest JSPR to read the article as soon as possible…

cj x



Filed under Poltergeist Research

29 responses to “Poltergeist Breakthrough? JSPR publishes Dr Barrie Colvin’s research

  1. Yes, I also consider this research amongst the most significant published to date. I chair the Spontaneous Cases of the SPR and we have been encouraging Dr Colvin’s research and its publication for some kind. Its importance lies in the fact it does not depend on eye-witness testimony or anecdote.

    If this effect stands up it is the first wholly instrumental evidence for an anomalous poltergeist effect. The research may be replicated and it is possible to develop testable experiments based upon it.

  2. Chris Jensen Romer

    Hi Alan,

    absolutely. BTW, have you ever looked at the Rougham poltergeist from the 1980’s? There was a piece on it in the Bury Free Press files. I willbe back in Bury to see my parents this summer, and it would be lovely to catch you iof possible, but I know you are VERY busy…

    cj x

    • Dear Chris

      Thanks for your message – yes, I would be happy to meet at any convenient point to discuss this and other topics of interest.

      I am spread between Suffolk and London throughout the week and weekends, so do please contact me and we can see about meeting.

      Regarding the Rougham case I have no information beyond the Bury Free Press report of the time…

      Speak to you in due course

      best wishes

      Alan Murdie

  3. JG

    I’ve read the paper and it is most interesting.

    There is one thing I don’t understand though. The ‘normal’ sounds are indeed what you would expect if you hit something with nothing but a short stretch of air between you and the tape recorder. However, in poltergeist cases, aren’t the sounds usually said to come from inside or behind walls or furniture? If so, there is at least one layer of wood or plaster, etc between the origin of the sound and the air. This would have the effect of damping down the higher frequencies in the sound. Since the lower frequencies of a percussive sound take longer to reach full intensity, isn’t the slower build up overall what we might expect? Thus, the sound intensity build up would be normal at the point of origin of the sound but altered, with a lower build up and higher frequencies missing, once it had gone through a layer of wood. The same affect would occur if someone actually hit the other side of a wall from the room where the tape recorder was positioned.

    Or maybe I’m just missing something.

  4. JG

    Just to clarify my previous comments: when sound waves move through a solid, they split into two modes – transverse and longitudinal. These travel at different speeds (one approximately twice the speed of the other). Thus not all the sound will arrive together, so making the build up to peak intensity slower than if it was travelling purely through air. So, if the rap goes through a wall or item of furniture, you would expect a slower build up in sound intensity compared to simply going through air.

    You can try this as an experiment by comparing someone hiting a wall inside a room and then again outside.

    • Chris Jensen Romer

      Thanks JG: apologies for the delay in replying. Yes we have been experimenting furiously, and I would love to discuss this further with you. Your comments have proven invaluable; might I ask you to drop me an email on chrisjensenromer@hotmail.com if oyu have a minute?

      cj x

  5. JG

    Though some sound is certainly delayed by going through solids, it depends very much on the thickness and consistency of the object involved. However, there is a more potent way of reducing the time taken to reach peak sound intensity by a large margin – sound reflections from walls!

    If a recorder is reasonably distant from a noise source, the sound will arrive over different paths (with different lengths) depending on where it is reflected from the walls. The result is that some sound arrives earlier than the rest giving a slower build up to peak intensity, compared to placing the recorder near the noise source. This can delay peak intensity by factors of up to an order of magnitude or more.

  6. JG

    Can’t edit comments here …

    It should have read “…there is a more potent way of INCREASING the time taken to reach peak sound intensity by a large margin…”

    Not ‘reducing’!

  7. JG

    Hi Chris

    I’ve emailed you some research I’ve done showing how the figures in the paper fit very well with the hypothesis that the ‘delayed’ sound intensity peak is due primarily to sound reflections from surrounding walls.

    • Chris Jensen Romer

      That was the conclusion I had recently come to, well partially. I have emailed you back I have been meaning to for rather a long time, and have sent you links to what I have been working on! 🙂 I think we may need to write this up formally.

      cj x

  8. Steve Hume


    I’ve been helping Barrie with further work into this for some time now. This has entailed obtaining fresh recordings for analysis with modern equipment.

    Naturally, we have done lots more comparison sounds with different types of mic’, both to analogue tape and digitally.

    I’m broadly in agreement with your comments JG. I’d only add that it is possible to eliminate (or, at least, minimise) ‘corruption’ of the waveforms’ attack phase by early reflections – by carefully measuring the distance from the mic’ capsule (or capsules) and the nearest major reflective surface. This is similar (sort of) to the method by which one would calculate the ‘mirror’ points either side of the mix position re studio monitors for accurate placement of acoustic treatment tiles.

    Then you can calculate where the direct sound starts to become obscured by the early reflections and potential analysis becomes skewed by comb filtering and other issues. Of course, you can make life easier still by making sure that you’re using highly directional mic’s and doing your best to keep them as far as possible from aforementioned surfaces and don’t allow any obstructions between them and the source – relatively easy in a sitter group/seance table situation. But probably next to impossible in a poltergeist type scenario.

    It’s a hell of a lot cheaper and more convenient than hiring an anechoic chamber, anyway.

    I suppose, we’re talking about knowing and controlling the acoustic environment and equipment to the greatest possible extent. Ideally this would include measuring the frequency response of the room too (knowing where room modes and standing waves are going to cause trouble) and other things too numerous to mention.

    Anyway. Your comments have been extremely valuable, mainly because they prompted me to revisit some test recordings I made of knuckle raps from the other side of a wall. You are absolutely correct in your assumptions. The ‘rise time’ is consistently greater than with raps made on the side nearest the mic’, roughly double with a good cardioid condenser – although we’re talking in terms of thousands of milliseconds. The difference is greater with a dynamic mic’. The low frequency content is also greater, and the high frequency content less from the other side of the wall too. A more hefty ‘thump’, say, with fist, produces a greater effect – more low frequencies.

    The difference in rise time is still evident on the other side of thinner structures – such as a table top. But the difference in frequency content much less so – barely evident at all with a knuckle rap.

    I’d forgotten to analyse all that fully – so cheers!

    One further comment: –

    The problems with the early recordings and the apparent rise times of the initial transients are much more numerous than just corruption by early reflections. The ‘cheap as chips’ mic’s that were probably used may also give an exaggerated rise time. The effects of recording to analogue tape will too because of the natural compression imparted by that medium…the cheaper, older and more used the tape is the worse it will be. And were the tape heads clean/aligned at the time? Who knows, but probably not!

    We’re working along several lines of inquiry at the moment, including refraction of sound waves through solids into air (and the associated change in speed), which you also mentioned earlier.

    Kind Regards

    Steve Hume

  9. Steve Hume


    Apologies, I hadn’t seen your later comments at the time of writing the foregoing.

    Also, ‘thousands of milliseconds’ should read ‘thousandths of milliseconds’ – in the order of 600 or so with the example cited.



  10. JG

    Thanks Steve, great to have some technical feedback ‘from the front’.

    My own conclusion so far, from my experiments (and those of others) and looking at the paper (see https://polterwotsit.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/poltergeist-raps-jg-experiments/) is that it is not possible to uniquely distinguish poltergeist recordings from others, particularly where reflections are involved, after the event.

    If, during an active investigation, the position of the source of the raps was definitely identified (though in many cases they seem to move about!) and the location of the sound recorder known, as well as the dimensions, shape and contents of the room documented, you might be possible to identify something unique about the sound.

    I have looked at sounds caused by stress release within objects eg. heating up an object or gently applying pressure to it, while it is already under tension. In the cases I’ve looked at so far, the attack, though longer than a simple rap with knuckles, was still in the millisecond range.

    The only way I’ve been able to reliably recreate the tens of milliseconds attack (why does no one say centisecond?), like those in the paper, is with the sound source blocked by an intermediate object, like large heavy furniture or simply round a corner in the wall, so that reflections predominate.

    I fear there is simply not enough information in a single recording to distinguish between the many possible variables that can cause a particular ‘signature’. What is really needed is a live poltergeist case with a decent sound recording set up to see if there really is anything unique about polt raps.

    • Steve Hume

      Hi JG

      I’ve had a quick look at the results of your other experiments. At the moment, I can’t see anything I’d disagree with or question. There are simply too many variables involved (even without mentioning the absurdly high noise floor/s) for these old recordings to be useful in any definitive sense.

      And it could be, in terms of frequency content, anyway, that that will also apply even to controlled recordings done with modern equipment too. We’ll just have to wait and see on that one.

      Indeed it was always going to be the case that modern recordings would have to be obtained.

      Your experiments re sounds caused by stress release sound extremely interesting.

      For now all I’d say is that it’s definitely possible (in a contemporary, reasonably well controlled situation) to provide very strong evidence of the location of virtually ANY sound source that falls within the frequency range of the mic’s employed – as long as you’re reasonably confident in advance, of the general area where the sound is going to come from.

      Again though, this would be most readily be applicable to a sitter group situation where raps are consistently coming from, say, a séance table (especially if the proceedings were being filmed from at least two angles).

      You can do this with at least 3 well sited mic’s (and a tape measure), although more would be better. And, ideally, the mic’ configuration would include at least some of the ‘shotgun’ variety.

      If there’s anyone else out there reading this who’s had to sort out phase problems in a modern DAW with a multi-mic’d drum kit recording, long after the event, when the drummer (I mention no names, but you know who you are!) has moved even one of the kit pieces or mic’s by even a couple of inches without telling anyone, then they might know what I’m talking about here.

      This is all exploratory stuff at the moment. But I’m glad Barrie has initiated it all with his paper. I’m sure that whatever comes out of it all will be valuable to some extent.



  11. JG

    I attended sitter groups many years ago. If they were recorded, I don’t have the recordings. As I recall there were scratching sounds but no raps. I’d be interested to know how those noises were caused.

    Are there people getting raps in sitter groups right now?

    • Steve Hume

      Yes JG – at least the one we (or rather, mainly, Barrie) have been working with. Although, for reasons I hope you’ll understand, I can’t reveal their identity, or much else right now. It’s ‘work in progress’.

      There are bound to be others though. For one thing there were many, many home circles associated with the Noah’s Ark Society and I’d be surprised if at least some of those weren’t still going.

      The problem is that most groups like this, at least the traditional ‘Spiritualist’ ones are ‘closed’ and for reasons that one could debate about till the the cows come home, are suspicious of ‘researchers’. We’re all rabid ‘skeptics’, in terms of attitude, as far as many of them are concerned. Even though few of them know anything about Professor Kurtz and the other CSI boys and girls from Buffalo. And many couldn’t give a monkey’s whether or not anyone believes their claims or not, anyway. As for filming etc – forget it, in most cases!

      Also, and I know this goes without saying, one would have to spend a great deal of time sorting wheat from chaff. Being reasonably confident that the ‘phenomena’ aren’t wholly fraudulent constitutes something of a major ‘first base’ that can be quite difficult to reach!!!

      Barrie and myself had the idea some time ago that it might be worth starting a group specifically for ‘research’ (a la Ken Batcheldor, or the Philip group). But the difficulty there is that you need people who are balanced enough (especially, no strident emotional attachment to a particular religious or scientific world view), close enough together geographically, and dedicated enough to meet at the same time week in, week out for months, more likely years, on end. No easy task these days.

      I was a member of such a group for a very long time. Ironically, I was a working musician then – in and out of studios of all sizes regularly. We had loads of ‘raps’ of all amplitudes coming from the walls, the table and elsewhere for an extended period. Did I have the nous to do what I’m doing now then? Of course not – I never took the multitrack recorder in once.

  12. I.B

    Hi, this is very interesting.
    I’m currently reading Colin Wilson’s ‘Poltergeist!’, and have previously read Lyon Playfair’s ‘This House is Haunted’ about the Enfield case. In Wilson’s book, he mentions that several witnesses (including Playfair’s observations of loud bangs and raps heard in Brazil) have described sounds produced by a poltergeist as having a character all their own; as though this were evident in its own right, and is now being confirmed by the wave forms they produce. Playfair describes thunderous bangs that do not however cause objects to vibrate, and whose echo takes a little too long to fade (or ‘decay’). Incidentally, Wilson also mentions in passing the work of a Dr J. L. Whitton, who was looking at soundwave forms produced by poltergeists decades ago (the book was published in 1981), and whose findings are the same as Dr Colvin’s. I don’t know if Dr Whitton’s work has been published, or whether Dr Colvin is aware of him…?

  13. Chris Jensen Romer

    Thanks IB, that is fascinating! I have not seen Whitton’s research, and wondered if you could give me the page number or any reference from Wilson’s book? My copy has long since bee borrowed by a friend and never been returned.

    cj x

  14. I.B

    It’s a pleasure.
    I have the book infront of me. The reference appears on page no.220, in a chaper entitled ‘The Black Magic Connection’.
    ” In fact, a researcher, Dr.J.L. Whitton, subjected tape-recordings of ‘spirit raps’ to laboratory analysis, and found that they are quite different in character from normal raps. Shown on a graph, an ordinary sound has a distinctive curve, rising and falling like the slopes of a mountain; spirit raps begin and end abruptly, like cliffs. In fact, they seem to be ‘manufactured’ noises, as if the poltergeist had a BBC sound laboratory at its disposal and had to concoct the noises electronically”

    Wilson goes on to say that Playfair noted that the four dogs in the house did not respond at all to the noises, although they were usually quite boisterous by nature. This seems to me something that those who claim all poltergiest cases are the results of hoaxing or trickery fail, or choose not, to address; that the noises (indeed also the physical moving of objects) have a unique nature all thier own and cannot be imitated.

    Similarly, in investigating the Humpty Doo poltergeist (a real place, apparently, in Australia) a thermal imaging camera was used to read ‘heat signatures’ on thrown objects. It found that the heat patteren was very different to one that would be expected had the object just left a person’s hand:http://www.blather.net/blather/1998/04/poltergeists_down_under.html

    • Steve Hume


      I’ve spoken to Barrie, he is aware of Whitton’s research. I think he may have referenced it in his paper. In fact he references Whitton twice in his paper, though not the book you mention I.B.

      I’ll be getting hold of the book concerned myself, though.

      Thanks and regards


  15. JG

    I have the book mentioned and have looked up the reference. The quotation given above is everything that is written on this subject. There are no illustrations in the book.

    The description of raps beginning and ending abruptly is completely at odds with what Colvin found for poltergeists. Without having the recordings available for analysis it is difficult to say how they might be reproduced. How steep a curve is ‘abrupt’? You can produce something like a rough square wave with many sine waves interfering with each other. This might be possible with strong, short echoes perhaps. If I knew what I had to reproduce, I’m sure I could find some natural situation that would fit.

  16. https://youtu.be/4O0U2W5e2dA 12:07, 12:48, 26:45, 27:30, 28:00, 30:00, 30:30, 31:18, 32:54, 33:25, 37:00, 37:57, 38:55, choppiness in/out interference, choppiness, signal interference, 39:45, 40:00, 40:40, 42:52, 43:07, 43:22, choppiness, 43:58, 46:57, 47:45, 48:05, 48:35, 52:35, 53:10, 55:05 (sound stops). choppiness, interference, 56:00, choppiness, static, in and out interference. 58:40, 59:05, 59:44, 1:03:00, 1:05:15, 1:05:50, 1:06:35, 1:07:15, choppiness, 1:08:00, 1:10:15, choppiness, camera being messed with. Listener should notice a peak and a tapering off. THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES. House is empty. No one is home.

    • Simon

      Hello macqdor,
      Do you keep pigeon’s?
      Maybe, in the loft?
      Sounds like a chick going through the hatching process.

      • There are no pigeons in the attic.http://s299.photobucket.com/user/macqdor/library/Stafford%20Way

        Three years of dealing with this. And two previous tenants going had gone through similar things. Attic is secure and is monitored with cameras.

      • Simon

        Hello again, macqdor,
        Your home was inhabited by a particularly nasty entity.
        I use the past tense, for I believe I have successfully cleared the problem.
        The entity has been neutralised and is now in the waste system, along with the remains of my dinner (yes, I was sick afterwards!)
        I ask that you now offer, vocally, The Lords Prayer.
        Hopefully, that is the end of the matter. I must rest.
        Good Luck and keep us posted.

  17. https://youtu.be/4O0U2W5e2dA 12:07, 12:48, 26:45, 27:30, 28:00, 30:00, 30:30, 31:18, 32:54, 33:25, 37:00, 37:57, 38:55, choppiness in/out interference, choppiness, signal interference, 39:45, 40:00, 40:40, 42:52, 43:07, 43:22, choppiness, 43:58, 46:57, 47:45, 48:05, 48:35, 52:35, 53:10, 55:05 (sound stops). choppiness, interference, 56:00, choppiness, static, in and out interference. 58:40, 59:05, 59:44, 1:03:00, 1:05:15, 1:05:50, 1:06:35, 1:07:15, choppiness, 1:08:00, 1:10:15, choppiness, camera being messed with. Listener should notice a peak and a tapering off. THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s