Doris locked that's why I had to knock stupid.

Thommo wrote:Gosh, the boys both write very nicely don't they.

Yes! Really good stuff. I'm just reading the debate now.

Imagination Theory wrote:

Thommo wrote:Gosh, the boys both write very nicely don't they.

Yes! Really good stuff. I'm just reading the debate now.

Has anyone seen Jerome about?

Nope, last post was at the weekend. Maybe on holiday or something ?

I believe he also does a bit of ghost-writing on the side.

John

I'm about sorry dudes. I was unwell for a few days and am desperately playing catch up with a couple of writing projects, and avoiding getting drawn in to a couple of JREF thread I can finally do my next post tomorrow, once again sincere apologies fo rmy absence.

j x

jerome wrote:I'm about sorry dudes

But not quite tho?

Anyway, don't push yourself too hard. A lot of my friends (and my eldest dog) have been under the weather lately and that has reminded me that some attention must be paid to recuperation as well as acute treatment.

jerome wrote:I'm about sorry dudes. I was unwell for a few days and am desperately playing catch up with a couple of writing projects, and avoiding getting drawn in to a couple of JREF thread I can finally do my next post tomorrow, once again sincere apologies fo rmy absence.

j x

If it's JREF, it must be Sylvia Browne or Bigfoot surely....

jerome wrote:I'm about sorry dudes. I was unwell for a few days and am desperately playing catch up with a couple of writing projects, and avoiding getting drawn in to a couple of JREF thread I can finally do my next post tomorrow, once again sincere apologies fo rmy absence.

j x

No problem!

OK, submitted, just waiting for approval. You will see why it took a while, and no, its actually much shorter than normal!

j x

Cheers Jerome!

BTW, I can't see any problem with the number of images seeing as they are integral to the post.

OK I found our old microphone at the bottom of the box of junk. It's a pretty shitty one though. Let's have a go downloading the fancy software ....

campermon wrote:Cheers Jerome!

BTW, I can't see any problem with the number of images seeing as they are integral to the post.

That was what I thought, without pictures it would have been far harder to describe. THis is the kind of thing I love doing -- I was never content to just tread papers, and your abrasion idea made so much sense i had to try it. I was getting frustrated until quite by chance i somehow made the noise, then it took a long while to find out how i did it!

j x

jerome wrote:

campermon wrote:Cheers Jerome!

BTW, I can't see any problem with the number of images seeing as they are integral to the post.

That was what I thought, without pictures it would have been far harder to describe. THis is the kind of thing I love doing -- I was never content to just tread papers, and your abrasion idea made so much sense i had to try it. I was getting frustrated until quite by chance i somehow made the noise, then it took a long while to find out how i did it!

j x

I'm still wracking my brain to work out some simple device that would be easy to construct and generate sounds with the characteristic profile...

campermon wrote:


I'm still wracking my brain to work out some simple device that would be easy to construct and generate sounds with the characteristic profile...

I don't think we actually need a device, because as I said in my post I doubt in all ten cases someone hit on the same method of fraud. It's more likely to be something very simple, that can be found in any house or bedroom, from Brazil to London, from 1950's to today. But what?

There was an intelligence behind these raps - they rapped out codes in some case: so it' not spontaneous settling or a chair scraping at random. SO if it's fraud, its something easy to do with your hands observed that creates a "banging" loud scratch. Scratching however it clearly is: but it still sounds wrong.

So what on earth is it? Well a device would be handy -- but I still think if fraud was employed its something simple and readily available to any of the ten potential hoaxers...

j x

I'd best clarify -- if the subject was not properly observed, then why not just bang away on something? That the characteristics do not show a normal rap suggest some other method: could til be fraud, but this is just getting more and more puzzling.

Right come on, how do we test this? I have the files, we can do this. Firstly, bang or scratch...

j x

jerome wrote:SO if it's fraud, its something easy to do with your hands observed that creates a "banging" loud scratch. Scratching however it clearly is: but it still sounds wrong.

So what on earth is it? Well a device would be handy -- but I still think if fraud was employed its something simple and readily available to any of the ten potential hoaxers...

j x

Controlled farting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatulist

OK my family now thinks I've completely flipped.

It is quite difficult to get the right attack with a bang. I've tried the radiators....

campermon wrote:

jerome wrote:SO if it's fraud, its something easy to do with your hands observed that creates a "banging" loud scratch. Scratching however it clearly is: but it still sounds wrong.

So what on earth is it? Well a device would be handy -- but I still think if fraud was employed its something simple and readily available to any of the ten potential hoaxers...

j x

Controlled farting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatulist

I used to light farts in my younger days. There was never enough gas to get anything audible, but occasionally some spectacular flames. We had names for them all ...."reamer", "Nelson's rolling mist"....