New phenomenon: recording without microphone?

1. Bulletin 23 At the sunset of this year of 2008, I decided to turn around my life by trying acceptance in the restricted and highly demanding academic world. Transcomunication needs the support of Science, but scientists rarely show interest in paranormal phenomena due to fear of compromising their careers. Those who have the courage to do it, chose various branches of research that unfortunately do not focus specifically in Transcommunication. Therefore, we lack strong allies in our field. Although facing up to mastership and doctorate may not be easy, it is something that our Friends from the Other Side see as a current necessity. As a good “soldier”, I don’t argue with the “Command.” During this hectic phase of studies and exams, a new phenomenon surprisingly came up, which I describe to you hereby. With affection Sonia Rinaldi New directions... New phenomenon: recording without microphone? Microfone used during the recording. It was manufactured in Germany, and a gift from transcommunicator F. Malkoff, many years ago. It is clear that all transcommunicators, by means of both old or new techniques, use equipment with microphones to record audios. Either with outdated recording equipments or with current use of computer, the use of a microphone (preferably of good quality) has been a basic requirement. Hence our surprise brought by the new occurrence - and again “by chance” - that showed us the way. Below is the account of the facts: It happened a couple of days ago, during a routine recording, in which I was asking the advise of Fernando, my deceased husband, about the Mastership’s admission test. Five seconds after I switched the microphone from ON to OFF, and stopped the Adobe Audition program in which I was recording, I heard that Fernando kept talking, although in a muffed tone (no microphone to count with): 01 –”I’M THERE AT YOUR SIDE!!!”(in Portuguese: ” TO AÍ DO SEU LADO !!!”) I was very puzzled by this. A few days thereafter I decided to test the possibility of RECORDING WITHOUT MICROFONE... as absurd as it may sound – as everyone knows that without a microphone, no recording is possible.

2. My laptop is a HP Pavillion that has no built-in microphone. It has a normal “mic” port to connect with an external microphone. Evidence that it cannot record, is that during the entire time I was speaking (see graphics below), and the microphone (“MIC”) was OFF or unplugged, my voice has not been recorded. Various laptops have internal MICs which is not the case with mine. Below is the configuration that I scanned from its manual: Fernando, deceased in 2005, after 20 years together, is today one of my most significant Speaker in the Other Side. Port for external MIC It corroborates with certainty that these were “transcontacts” through the CONTENTS in the responses, which suggests that they were testing something new to them. In the following pages you can listen the entire recording’s sequence of approximately 3 minutes of conversation. There were 16 coherent and intelligent responses, which discard the possibility of “chance” happenings.

3. Technical procedure and results: As usual, I recorded using two mixed male voices, both simultaneously, as background noise. This procedure is the same we teach in our workshops. Since I intended to test if it was possible for the Communicators to talk without using the microphone, I started with it ON, for comparison effect. Such process (taught also in our book “Recording Voices”) generates high, clean and clear voices. And it was what happened with the 3 initial answers: Note the good sonority of these three contacts with background noise and MIKE connected – (position ON – and LED lighted). The voices speak in high volume, clear and cleanly. Without interrupting the recording I kept talking and placed the MIKE in the OFF position, that means, disconnected: Here my voice does not appear anymore, but note the contents that just make reference to the fact that he remained in contact with me. It is an ordinary expression quite used by them. When they say “I’m with you”, for instance, they mean “we’re tuned”. It was that precisely, that Fernando ensured in those two contacts.

4. Note that the sonority is not the same like in the three first ones Clearly Fernando tried to speak in a clear way but his voice remains slightly “muffled”. Not satisfied in testing the microphone disconnected, I had the idea of disconnect it totally. I took the plug out of the MIC connector and kept talking. My voice keeps not being registered, but even with a slight lost in quality Fernando kept confirming that he was still in contact. It’s curious that once more they refer to the equipment they use and called of “telephone”. We don’t know which type it is. Check the slight deterioration in quality. In the sequence, I reconnected the mike cable to the audio input, but maintained it in the “off” position, that means DISconnected.

5. Here appears a transconctact , which I consider the most important of all the recording: This contact gets the exact transition between disconnected – connected – because it was in OFF and I switched to ON. Note the jump in the voice quality when I switch the microphone from disconnected to connected. When Fernando says “We (in portuguese) did a contact” (“FI”(zemos um teste))... Exactly on the “fi” was the moment in which I switched to ON, that means, I turned it on. The importance of that recording remains in the fact that. It demonstrates that the spiritual friends were all the time in contact, meaning with the MIKE or without it, because he started to say the phrase with the MIKE in OFF and finished it with the MIKE in ON. This means that he said the phrase independently of the microphone being on or not. This last contact seems to be some “key” with which we could not explain. We think that to be able to access us without microphone, they have to alter something in their technology. But this will be a later matter to deal with. What was important was to discover that they depend each time less of even our equipments. As we can verify a difference in voice quality, means that we can record using to some extent the microphone, of course, but they can also manipulate the internal part of the computer. About that, we’ll listen our volunteer friends in the technical areas, engineer, physics and so on.

6. PARANORMAL AUDIOS’ ANALYSIS 1) Analyzed audios I received 15 samples obtained during a recent recording experience, which are identified in Table 1 & 2 hereby. These are digital recordings with input through a laptop without microphone. Surprisingly, even tough the laptop did not have a microphone, several contacts were recorded. Additional tests were performed with an external microphone, and again with the microphone disconnected. I selected ten samples for analysis and comparison between the two aforementioned methods, further compared with audios obtained through usual methods. The results are presented in this report. 2) Analysis of phonetic parameters Table 1 F0 – Fundamental Frequency (Hz) F1 – Formant Frequency 1 (Hz) F2 – Formant Frequency 2 (Hz) F3 – Formant Frequency 3 (Hz) F4 – Formant Frequency 4 (Hz) Shimmer (%) – Measured of audio disarrangement Integrated Frequency (Hz) The analysis of the audios showed the following: - The obtained integrated frequency is compatible with that obtained during recordings using a microphone - The jitter and shimmer parameters show values that are compatible with the paranormal voices (jitter >1% and shimmer >10%), except on audio MARC-08 that shows a jitter compatible with a human voice. We can conclude that the audios have paranormal voice characteristics similar to the ones recorded by microphone. Tabela 1

7. Samples for comparison: With the purpose ofobserving any possible differences, we used audios previously analyzed from recordings via telephone instead of microphone, Table 2: Table 3: We further compared previous recordings obtained with the usual microphone method. We observed lower frequencies, usually under 100Hz (eventually, they can present higher values, but rarely beyond 200Hz)

8. CREATING A COMPARISON: By analysis of the results obtained in this experiment (Table 1) it is apparent that there was an optimal concordance within the formant values F1 to F4, which is not the norm, a fact that can be verified by analysis of the values in tables 2 and 3. To facilitate the visualization of this occurrence, we add hereby graphics of formation distribution for audios obtained in the experiment, with the microphone on and off, and in an experiment with recordings obtained through normal process. See graphics aside: Graphic 1: microphone ON Graphic 2: microphone off

9. Graphic 3: previous recordings obtained with a microphone in the conventional manner: It is noticeable the dispersion of the formants in an experiment recorded in a traditional process (graphic 3) in comparison with the others as seen in graphics 1 and 2. At the moment, there is no explanation for such this occurrence 3) Signal analysis Given the experiment characteristic, by which audios were recorded when in theory they could not have been recorded, we thought that it could be useful to obtain the signal analysis of these recordings, by means of an specific software that execute calculations through a rapid Fourier transformer. The resulting graphics obtained with the aforementioned samples (microphone on/off/ unplugged compared with old method) bring a very interesting result. The curves are represented below: Graphic 4: Curve FFT of recorded audio with the microphoneon.

10. Graphic 5: Curve FFT of recorded audio with the microphone off. Graphic 6: Curve FFT of recorded audio with the microphone unplugged. Graphic 7: Curve FFT of recorded audio using the old process with microphone. Comparing graphics 4, 5, 6 and 7, it’s clear that the signal recorded in this experiment is completely different than the one recorded in the normal process. So, it concludes that the signal recorded in this experiment presents differences in relation to the ones obtained in previous processes.

11. 4) Signal analysis • Through the data obtained and from the graphics generated, we can conclude that: • - the analyzed audios have characteristics of paranormal voices with microphone recording; • the recorded signal in that experiment presents differences in relation to the ones obtained in previous processes. • Software used: Adobe Audition, Praat, and Sigview. The sound emitted by the vocal cords passes through different cavities, characteristic of each person, until coming out to the ambiance in the form of the speaker’s voice. Here are the expressions used: F0 – Fundamental Frequency is the frequency emitted by the vocal cords (or vocal folding), not considering the rest of the phonetic apparatus F1 – Forming Frequency 1: frequency of the sound emitted by the vocal cords when passing through the first cavity of the vocal tract. F2 – Forming Frequency 2: frequency of the sound emitted by the vocal cords when passing through the second cavity of the vocal tract. F3 – Forming Frequency 3: frequency of the sound emitted by the vocal cords when passing through the third cavity of the vocal tract. F4 Forming Frequency 4: frequency of the sound emitted by the vocal cords when passing through the fourth cavity of the vocal tract. Shimmer (%) – Measurement of audio disorder. The bigger the value, the biggest the disorder. Jitter (%) – Measurement of the abrupt existing variations in an audio. The bigger this value, the largest the quantity of abrupt variations. Integrated Frequency (Hz) – Unique Frequency calculated through the fast transformer of Fourier (a mathematical process used in calculus) that characterizes an audio. Softwares used: Adobe Audition, Praat and Sigview. Analysis done by Dr. Claudio Brasil Leitão Júnior Scientific Unit Coordinator IPATI

12. TECHNICAL POINT-OF-VIEW: We have asked to a number of our technical volunteers to explain HOW these recordings - without microphone, with microphone OFF, and microphone unplugged - could have occurred. The friends-volunteers that collaborated with opinions and information were: Alexandre Borges (Bahia), Reinaldo (São Paulo), Jacques Arongaus (Canadá), Claudinha Santa Isabel (Bahia), Nativo Oliveira (São Paulo), and José Luiz Bet (Paraná), who wrote the summary included hereby. It is worth to mention that this subject is of paramount importance, because it seeks to discern HOW the communicators put their answers in our equipments. Bill Weisensale elaborated a great study (see http://www.aaevp.com) where the author discusses whether the phenomena of paranormal voices are of acoustic or electromagnetic nature (or neither). The colleague and transcommunicator Alexandre Borges remembered that these phenomena with voices have occurred without the normal input through microphone with the Italian Marcello Bacci (see Bulletin 21), and appear as such in the first books about ITC of the Lithuanian and pioneer Dr. Konstantin Raudive. As Alexandre pointed out, the Raudive’s book Breakthrough mentions various experiments with a recorder and the use of a microphone, directly or via cable. Therefore, we are not innovating. The difference this time is that now we have more control to both record and analyze, given the advances in technology that were obviously not available at that time. WHERE THE RECORDINGS OCCUR: In our book Espírito: o Desafio da comprovação (Ed. Elevação – sold out) we mention broad studies, which lead to the conclusion that the voice phenomena are neither acoustic nor electromagnetic. We describe the reasons and gave audio samples in the CD that came attached in the book. This time, our colleague José Luiz explains: “Since a computer is digital equipment, it does manipulate audio only in a digital manner. The human voice that comes out of a CD player or of a recorder head is analog. Given that the computer only manages digital sounds – that is, within the HD, RAM, etc - any audio will always be digital. This is the only language that a computer understands. One talks, and the microphone captures. The captured sound is analogic. It enters the sound card via microphone, where it is transformed in digital. Only after the change a computer will then be able to handle it. Therefore, we can say that the change from analog to digital is the first step executed by the computer (precisely within the sound card). The audio must be analog to be heard by the speakers or boombox because these can only reproduce the sounds in this manner. Example: if you apply an “echo” effect in any audio, the computer will manipulate and save it in the digital form. But if you want to hear it (play) the computer will read the audio saved in the HD, and send it back to the sound plaque, thus enabling its reproduction through the acoustic speaker.

13. Once here, the audio or sound follows a different path towards the speakers output. In there, another circuit called D/A (r digital/analog converter) converts the digital sound back to analog. This means that the only two points in the computer in which we have analog audios are: 1. at the input in the sound card. 2. at the output in the card. Within the computer it is digital. In the Sonia’s recording case, there were analog sounds (in the environment), that is, her voice entry via microphone plus de background noise generated within the computer itself (formatted by Adobe Audition), and sound exiting from the laptop. The microphone will obviously carry just one analogical sound (the mixture of voice + background noise produced by the speakers). PERSONAL INTERPRETATION: It is possible that the manipulation of the audio by the Communicators occurs directly in the sound card, or their manipulation may also occur while the audio is still in analog form, that is, before its conversion into digital form. Another possibility is that somehow the communicators are able to manipulate the bytes of digital audios. It is know that the digital form is represented by 0 and 1. A combination of “zeros e ones” form a digital representation of the analog sound sent to the computer. With the microphone on “off”, but still connected to the computer PC, the voices were recorded, although it is noticeable the deterioration of the quality of the transcontacts. In here there is a detail that I deem important: the microphone used by Sonia is the “amplified” type. The importance is that in a common microphone once the position on/off is set, a short circuit occurs between the positive and the ground at the cable. The cable’s positive is connected to the sound card’s microphone entry, which is the same as taking this entry and make a short-circuit with the ground. This means that one redirects any sound that is present to ground, so nothing will therefore enter the sound card. Similarly, if we lower the radio volume to the minimum, nothing will be heard from the speakers because we create a short-circuit in the radio’s amplifier with ground. However, the MIC that was used was “preamp” that has an audio electronic circuit (it is the pre-amplifier of the microphone), which is fed b a 9V battery - there is no certainty that once Off it only interrupts the battery fed.. In which case, the cable is probably not short-circuiting with ground. It remains "open". It would be convenient to execute recording tests also with the common microphone to evaluate the results. The Communicators could well have used something at the microphone, and it is also possible that they had acted the entire time directly in the sound card. . Only the latter would explain the recording with the unplugged microphone. Finally, to better understand how our Communicators manipulate the sound it is important to at least understand how the audio works within the computer. It is my understanding, given recent experiments mentioned in this bulletin, almost all audios happened as direct interference in the sound card within the computer. I welcome the opinion of other technicians and engineers, because we will only have better conditions to help our friends Communicators by gaining better understanding of the process.