Can Infrasound Explain Ghostly Apparitions?

[Evo]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
It is possible they are misusing the term nystagmus, yes. This is why I thought it would be good to read the whole paper.

I agree.

Originally posted by Zoobyshoe - It would be nice to be able to read the whole paper. Abstracts have to be brief and all they do is summarize. There is no doubt that in the full paper they go into specifics about what studies they're seeking to refute. They will also include all info about those studies in a bibliography so that they can be tracked down and read.

I agree, I'm trying to get a copy.

Anyway, as far as eyeball shaking it looks like the NASA paper Tandy just identified is devoted exclusively to this phenomenon. [/B][/QUOTE] Have you found the paper? I'd like to read it.

I found another paper by the first authors and it's about whole body vibrations caused by sports like skiing, etc... not infrasound. Is the other paper to do with infrasound?

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Well, I'm glad he gave you the information about the NASA papers.

I thought his remarks were somewhat obscure. (What does he mean by "ghost in the machine"?)

"Ghost in the machine" is the title of the paper he submitted to the journal of the Society for Psychical Research.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Well, I'm glad he gave you the information about the NASA papers.

I thought his remarks were somewhat obscure. (What does he mean by "ghost in the machine"?)
It sounds like he's thinking of proposing that given a spooky environment, and no expectation of being artificially interfered with by infrasound, the effects happen at a lower decibel level.

I noticed that some of his sentences trail off with three dots. Was this in his original mail, Ivan, or did you delete anything?

Zooby

First, I am glad to see what appears to be a valid reference. I like debating theories and claims; not attacking people [with the one exception of President Bush ]. It always makes me feel a little sick when I catch someone who knowingly perpetuates a fraudulent claim...especially someone who appears to be credible. Also, I am not familiar with his "ghost machine" reference.

I have posted his response in total. I would only delete personal references that do not apply to the discussion or their public claims. In this case there were none. Also, to a certain extent I feel that people like Tandy are fair game for discussion and for posting as I have done here, but I also think it would be unfair to quote his emails any further without his knowledge. I am going to ask him to join in the discussion. If he doesn't then I guess we're on our own.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Evo
"Ghost in the machine" is the title of the paper he submitted to the journal of the Society for Psychical Research.

thank you.

I must have seen this but ignored the name.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby:

Anyway, as far as eyeball shaking it looks like the NASA paper Tandy just identified is devoted exclusively to this phenomenon.

Evo:

Have you found the paper? I'd like to read it.

No, I haven't read the paper. Ivan just got all the info about it from Tandy. (See his post on the previous page of this thread) I say it looks like it is exclusively devoted to this phenomenon because of the title:"Mechanical resonant frequency of the Human Eyeball in Vivo."

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
First, I am glad to see what appears to be a valid reference.

Same here.

I have posted his response in total. I would only delete personal references that do not apply to the discussion or their public claims.

I didn't think you would delete anything without explanation, but I had to ask, because you said you were posting in a hurry. The peculiar "..." thing he does must be some kind of idiosynchracy, then.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Anyway, as far as eyeball shaking it looks like the NASA paper Tandy just identified is devoted exclusively to this phenomenon.

I don't doubt there is resonance, what I have yet to see is any evidence that the resonance is significant enough to cause "apparitions".

The paper is titled "Mechanical resonant frequency of the human eye in vivo" According to Tandy "Meanwhile a NASA Technical Report (19770013810) mentions a resonant frequency for the human eye of 18 Hz causing severe "smearing" of vision." (This is the second paper he references in his e-mail, the one we are discussing in this post.) Smearing of vision? That's it? What percent of subjects reported this? How many were tested?

This article may only have one sentence as a side note saying "out of 500 test subjects, one person reported smearing of his vision".

Perhaps the article will say "of 500 test subjects, 475 reported smearing of vision", that might make me think "hey, maybe he's onto something". But if this is the case, why would this test be the only one that reports any type of vision distortion?

If what Tandy says about the smearing of vision, (and he further goes on to suggest it may only be peripheral?) see link below, is all he has to go on, I'm disappointed, I would love for someone to have found the explanation, but I need to read the papers before I can agree or disagree with his assumptions.

http://www.the-bureau.org/Conclusions.htm

I believe he is sincere in his belief, but I don't think this is the answer we're looking for to explain "hauntings".

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Evo Smearing of vision? That's it? What percent of subjects reported this? How many were tested?

Goodness, you're impatient. Ivan hasn't even gotten ahold of this paper yet.

This article may only have one sentence as a side note saying "out of 500 test subjects, one person reported smearing of his vision".

It very well might say this. Let's wait till we can read the paper.

Perhaps the article will say "of 500 test subjects, 475 reported smearing of vision", that might make me think "hey, maybe he's onto something". But if this is the case, why would this test be the only one that reports any type of vision distortion?

Perhaps it will. We should probably read it before getting exited one way or the other.

If what Tandy says about the smearing of vision, (and he further goes on to suggest it may only be peripheral?) see link below, is all he has to go on, I'm disappointed, I would love for someone to have found the explanation, but I need to read the papers before I can agree or disagree with his assumptions.

Read the papers first? Novel idea!

Tandy has never claimed anything but the appearance of a blurry, grey moving figure in his periferal vision during his own experience. I posted two versions of his story in my opening post to this thread. I'm not sure where you got the impression it was anything more definite than that.

I believe he is sincere in his belief, but I don't think this is the answer we're looking for to explain "hauntings".

Well, I'm not sure what answer you're looking for, but this explanation would certainly cover some of them, particularly the vague ones that resemble the one Tandy had. It makes perfect sense that the combination of a spooky place, compounded by unpleasant emotions and then the vague appearance of something in one's periferal vision that disappears when you look directly at it would cause some people to conclude they'd been visited by a ghost.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Goodness, you're impatient. Ivan hasn't even gotten ahold of this paper yet.

One of my bad qualities, I'm known to go without food or sleep when I am trying to find a piece of a puzzle.

Tandy has never claimed anything but the appearance of a blurry, grey moving figure in his periferal vision during his own experience. I posted two versions of his story in my opening post to this thread. I'm not sure where you got the impression it was anything more definite than that.

From the website of the company he is working with to manufacture his devices.

Well, I'm not sure what answer you're looking for, but this explanation would certainly cover some of them, particularly the vague ones that resemble the one Tandy had. It makes perfect sense that the combination of a spooky place, compounded by unpleasant emotions and then the vague appearance of something in one's periferal vision that disappears when you look directly at it would cause some people to conclude they'd been visited by a ghost.

But those types of reports don't draw attention.

 

[mouseonmoon]

quote:
take into account combinational factors... infrasound + spooky environment increases the odds of feeling a presence... in my view infrasound acts as catalyst.
----

Furthermore-temperature and humidity-and as a guess 'humidity' may be part of the 'combination'--ghosts appear winter and summer--same as fog--if you 'see' the analogy-certainly humidity has an effect on sound---infrasound?

what exactly is 'vibrating' the eyeball?--is it the 'liquid' eyeball, or, are muscles reacting (twitching,having a spasm--if chest starts vibrating,will this cause eyeball vibration if...)

Conditions may exist that would produce a 'wet or dry eyeball'==i'm thinking of numerous reports of certain 'smells' in the air--sulphur like---a'nother 'combinational factor' than may be present and more likely to be 'in the air' in higher concentrations when there is high humidity--yet below the threshold of smell or 'noticed but forgotten'.

(like the smell of leaking gas--((for example, we had a leak here after new furnace was installed, i could smell it when i first entered the room,only an instant 'whiff'...the fellow who came to check it out commented that 'i must have a good sense of smell,as he didn't notice anything'...eventually found it

my point--always been curious about these reports of the 'smells'--like 'old eggs',burnt match, sulphur,'gas', etc.----and as the smell of an onion produces tears in the eye...'see' where I'm going?

number of 'factors' here may be working together to cause the 'eyeball shakes'='hautings"=background infrasound causes sulphur molecules to vibrate which increase olafactory sense producing 'eyeball shake'.

also curious is "smearing of vision"--it's not like every night he was 'seeing ghosts';
something unique happened,right?...i have 'smearing of vision' whenever i stop taking vitamin B (result of too much ale the night before,alcohol consumes vit B affecting vision/mind/brain). So, it's getting complicated, and this, I think, is his point=="take into account combinational factors"... (I use the "..." a lot myself, and it 'means'- 'follow this thought,you may have questions,i'm willing to discuss further but it will take too long at the momment,much more can be said on this, etc...


really fascinating,keep up the investigations...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Evo
One of my bad qualities, I'm known to go without food or sleep when I am trying to find a piece of a puzzle.

Now you sound more like me than Tsunami.

I will get back to this thread as soon as work lightens up a bit. Hopefully this will only take a few days or so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thank you for contacting the NASA STI Help Desk.

I believe you are probably using the NTRS: NASA Technical Reports Server for your searches. The NTRS is available at the following web address:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/

If I am wrong, please let me know what server you are using.

Documents with the numbers 19800007533 and 19730008358 are listed on the NTRS, although the full text is not available there. Document number 19770013810 is not listed on the NTRS. The probable reason is that 19770013810, unlike the other two documents, was not issued by NASA, but is a U.S. Air Force report. NASA's goal for the NTRS is to provide a source of all publicly available NASA scientific and technical information, and to enhance those resources with certain other aerospace related materials. Since 19770013810 is not a NASA document, it is less likely to appear on the NTRS. I would like to note further that a search for "infrasound" would not have retrieved this document even if it were on the NTRS server, since that is not the subject of the report and the word does not appear in the citation.

The report is available for purchase from here at the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) for the price listed below, plus shipping and handling per copy. A reproduction will be supplied unless otherwise noted. Prices are subject to change without notice.

Doc ID 19770013810
"Mechanical resonant frequency of the human eye in vivo; Ph.D. Thesis," by M.K. Ohlbaum. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. August 1, 1976. 105 pages. Report No. AMRL-TR-75-113. AD-A030476.

Price: $35.50 within the U.S.A.
S&H: $ 2.00

We require prepayment in the form of Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Diner's Club, check, or money order (U.S. currency). Please make your check or money order payable to: NASA Center for AeroSpace Information.

Most orders are processed in-house within 3 business days and are delivered within 3-7 business days within the United States. One day in-house rush processing is available for an additional fee of $10.00 per item. The standard shipping and handling fee per item is $2.00. Federal Express shipping is also available for U.S. addresses for an additional fee of $7.00 per item.

You may place an order by:
1) completing the online STI Order Form at
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ordersti.pl,
2) sending your order form to the NASA CASI STI Ordering Services fax number, or
3) mailing the order form to:

Attn: STI Ordering Services
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information
7121 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD 21076-1320

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the NASA STI Help Desk by telephone, fax, or email.



**************
NASA STI Help Desk
Tel: (301) 621-0390
Fax: (301) 621-0134
help@sti.nasa.gov

The NASA Scientific and Technical Information Program is dedicated to providing superior service. You may submit comments on our products and services by sending feedback via email to: help@sti.nasa.gov and indicating "STI Feedback" in the subject line. If you are a Federal Government employee, you may use the automated poll at http://poll.larc.nasa.gov/STI/.

If you are a repeat customer who prefers not to provide feedback each time you access services and products, we will assume that we have provided very satisfactory service unless we hear from you.

We greatly appreciate your patronage.

 

[zoobyshoe]

19770013810 seems to be the one we're most interested in. Tandy also mentioned 19870046176A, bu they said nothing about that one.

What are 19800007533 and 1973008358 about? You didn't mention you were asking about any but the ones Tandy mentioned.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking - Since 19770013810 is not a NASA document, it is less likely to appear on the NTRS. I would like to note further that a search for "infrasound" would not have retrieved this document even if it were on the NTRS server, since that is not the subject of the report and the word does not appear in the citation.

So, the document is not even about infrasound.

Kind of a leap for Tandy to use this to back up his "infrasound" theory, isn't it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
What are 19800007533 and 1973008358 about? You didn't mention you were asking about any but the ones Tandy mentioned.

Those popped up when searching the tech reports for "infrasound" and "humans". The reports are not available online. They must be purchased.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Evo
So, the document is not even about infrasound.

Kind of a leap for Tandy to use this to back up his "infrasound" theory, isn't it?

I am curious to see how much supporting evidence really exists. I find more and more that technical sorts will jump on any logical explanation, regardless of its merits or lack there of. This is why I am now so very skeptical of popular skeptics and skeptical sites.

Also, the comments made by Pergatory and Megashawn suggest to me that volume may be more critical than frequency. This is what bothered me about the original claim. I find many of the sources listed as unlikely candidates to produce enough volume [wave intensity].

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Evo
So, the document is not even about infrasound.

Kind of a leap for Tandy to use this to back up his "infrasound" theory, isn't it?

What it says is that the word "infrasound" does not appear in the title or the citation, which is the blurb used to briefly describe the report. It does not mean the word isn't used in the report, or that references aren't made to, for instance, "sound in the range of 18 cps" with regard to the resonance frequency of the human eyeball.

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ordersti.pl

Testing to see if I can get this link to work by removing the comma between .pl and the closing url bracket.
____________________

Edit: That did the trick. The comma was preventing NASA from being able to find the page.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
What it says is that the word "infrasound" does not appear in the title or the citation, which is the blurb used to briefly describe the report. It does not mean the word isn't used in the report, or that references aren't made to, for instance, "sound in the range of 18 cps" with regard to the resonance frequency of the human eyeball.

From what the guy at NASA is saying about the search function, that the article would not be found by searching on "infrasound" I think it would be safe to say that the word is not in the document at all.

I think Tandy may have been a bit over excited and perhaps made some overly optimistic assumptions based on a thought he had. He is correct that infrasound can cause "weird feelings", but the visual impairment tends to be unsubstantiated as yet.

I can find no research anywhere on humans that shows visual impairments of any type cause by infrasound. None. And I have done quite an extensive search. I am still open to the possibility of it, but I am still waiting for that bit of evidence to support it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Those popped up when searching the tech reports for "infrasound" and "humans". The reports are not available online. They must be purchased.

Where were you searching? I'd be interested in reading the abstracts. I would also be interested in reading the abstract for the "eyeball in vivo" and other one Tandy mentioned.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I found the abstracts for 19800007533 and 19730008358.

Do you have any idea where to find abstracts for the other two?

 

[zoobyshoe]

This paper here:

Address:http://users.iafrica.com/s/sa/salbu/apollo/HumA2.html

says that Tandy got his info from more sources than just the NASA paper and quotes what these other sources say about the effect of infrasound on the eye.

It also explains, Ivan, how Tandy experimented to find the spot in the room where the standing wave was strongest. With a wave this large being at the node would be quite a different experience than being at an anti-node. Tandy found a very different reaction in his foil depending on where he put it in the room. He, too, thought the decibel level would be too low, but reconsidered when he took the size of the fan and motor into account.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
and quotes what these other sources say about the effect of infrasound on the eye.

Can you pull these out of that person's website you list and show them? I don't see anything except supposition.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Interesting info about pipe organ that produces infrasound:World's Largest Organ, Atlantic City, NJ
Address:http://theatreorgans.com/atlcity/index2.htm

"the largest pipe in the organ, and also the largest organ pipe in the world, is the low "C" of the 64 foot diaphone profunda. The pipe is 64 feet nine inches long, ten inches square at the base, and 36 inches square at the top..." "...Since low "C" vibrates only eight cycles per second the tone is felt rather than heard but nevertheless it supplies a strong foundation for the entire pedal organ division."

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Evo
Can you pull these out of that person's website you list and show them? I don't see anything except supposition.

"In any case, the symptoms listed by Temple (1976) for low frequency sound waves are; Severe middle ear pain (not experienced), persistent eye watering, and respiratory difficulties, sensations of fear including excessive perspiration and shivering." "Table IV on page 212 of this book shows frequencies causing disturbance to the eyes and vision to be within the band 12 to 27 Hz. A more recent book by Kroemer (1994) describes the effects of low frequency vibration as follows;
'Vibration of the body mostly affects the principal input ports, the eyes, and principal output means, hands and mouth.'(p. 287)." "Tables 5-12 of Kroemer (1994) on p. 288, indicate that the resonant frequencies of body parts are; Head (2-20 Hz causing general discomfort), Eyeballs (1-100Hz mostly above 8 Hz and strongly 20-70Hz effect difficulty in seeing). However, different sources give different resonant frequencies for the eye itself."
_

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
"In any case, the symptoms listed by Temple (1976) for low frequency sound waves are; Severe middle ear pain (not experienced), persistent eye watering, and respiratory difficulties, sensations of fear including excessive perspiration and shivering."

A statement without the facts to back it up means nothing. At what levels were these effects observed at? From the 2003 UK government study I found below, apparently it takes a rather high level and even then the effects are not enough to be considered significant. Tests done by Tempest only showed effects on 30% of his test subjects suffered nystagmus with no mention of vision impairment while another noted test done by Johnson showed no cases of nystagmus. (zooby, the term nystagmus is used here in relation to involuntary eye movements caused by infrasound)

In all of the research, vision impairment doesn’t appear to be a symptom that is considered related to infrasound, even with “vibrations” taken into consideration, since the “vibrations” are so insignificant.

The study is titled “A review of published research on low frequency noise and it’s effects”

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/lowfrequency/pdf/lowfreqnoise.pdf

On page 8, paragraph 2.6 Infrasound - it says “Much of what has been written about infrasound in the press and in popular books is grossly misleading and should be discounted.”

See page 25, paragraph 7.2 through page 27 paragraph 7.2.2 on body vibrations.

Also page 55, paragraph 13.3 Biological effects on humans: In the numerous published studies there is little or no agreement about the biological activity following exposure to infrasound.

Page 56 – “To study vestibular effects in humans, both a rail balancing task and direct nystagmus (involuntary eye movements) measurement have been used.”

“However Evans (Evans & Tempest 1972) examining the effect of infrasonic environments on human behavior found that 30% of normal subjects exposed to tones of 2-10 Hz had nystagmus within 60 seconds of exposure to 120db signal, with 7 Hz being most effective in causing it. Higher intensities resulted in faster onset of nystagmus, but there were no complaints of discomfort from any of the subjects at any SPL.”
“Subsequently Johnson (Johnson, 1975) who investigated nystagmus in many experiments under different conditions with aural infrasound stimulations from 142 to 155db had negative results.”

After looking at all of the various research, I have to conclude, for now, that Tandy jumped to a conclusion without any substantial or conclusive evidence. That’s my take on it, you may see it differently.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Evo
After looking at all of the various research, I have to conclude, for now, that Tandy jumped to a conclusion without any substantial or conclusive evidence. That’s my take on it, you may see it differently.

Originally posted by Evo
I believe he is sincere in his belief, but I don't think this is the answer we're looking for to explain "hauntings".

So, I'm getting the distinct feeling you, or someone you know has had a "haunting"?

 

[zoobyshoe]

And to reiterate:

"The involuntary eye movements of nystagmus are caused by abnormal functions in the areas of the brain that control eye mevements"

from this:

MEDLINEplus Medical Encyclopedia: Eye movements - uncontrollable
Address:http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003037.htm
Mechanical vibrations of the eye cannot accurately be referred to as "nystagmus".

 

[Evo]

zooby, the documents that Tandy said he used are the ones using the term nystagmus in reference to the vibration of the eyeball. Are you disputing Tandy's references then? See the research done by Tempest, he's the only one that has documented nystagmus as an effect of ultrasound, but mostly at 7Hz, not 19Hz. This is one of Tandy's sources that you listed.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Evo
zooby, the documents that Tandy said he used are the ones using the term nystagmus in reference to the vibration of the eyeball.

The distinction has to be maintained between involuntary eye movements that may be suspected to be caused by infrasound affecting the brain's motore control of the eyes, and a different, purely mechanical, direct vibration of the eyeball by infrasound with no involement of the brain or nervous system or eye muscles. These are two separate phenmomena.

Finding that infrasound does not cause nystagmus implies that it is a much safer thing to be exposed to than if it is thought to be affecting people brains. You see? This is an important thing to find out because of various industrial situations where people would be exposed to infrasound. Is this exposure safe? "Mere" mechanical vibrations of the eyeball would not involve the brain or nervous system, and would not be considered so dangerous, (and could also not correctly be referred to as "nystagmus"). People performing studies to "clear" infrasound of causing nystagmus among other health risks, are not automatically also clearing it of direct mechanical vibration of the eyeballs.
__________________________

So, Evo, ever seen a ghost?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here are my impressions so far.

So far I think that Evo has shown that any specific frequency dependence for mechanical oscillations of the eye is doubtful.

Next, the numbers mentioned indicate that the wave intensity required to cause physical effects are well into levels that would cause loss of hearing. I would also expect that waves of this intensity could be felt throughout the body. Again, this makes me question the wave intensities required in order to produce any significant physical effects.

Also, how could a person's eye be vibrating but with only subtle effects? I would expect that given eye rattling one's vision would be generally affected as with Megashawn's experience.

Finally, I had a ghostly episode two nights ago and as discussed here. I was sitting here working and I kept getting glimpses of a gray, blurry image in my right eye's peripheral vision. when I turned and looked nothing was there. First I thought infrasound, and then I thought temporal lobe seizure, and then I realized the real culprit - a mouse. It really had me going for a couple of minutes.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
So, Evo, ever seen a ghost?

I saw a cat that wasn't there. But since I'm not convinced that anything exists afer we die, I wouldn't call it a ghost. I don't believe that people that see "ghosts" are seeing the dead walking around. But I do believe that there may be a natural explanation for a lot of the reported "apparitions" or whatever you want to call them. They've been reported by too many credible people over the years to be discounted.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Finally, I had a ghostly episode two nights ago and as discussed here. I was sitting here working and I kept getting glimpse of a gray, blurry image in my right eye's peripheral vision. when I turned and looked, nothing was there. First I thought infrasound, and then I thought temporal lobe seizure, and then I realized the real culprit - a mouse. It really had me going for a couple of minutes.

Too funny!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
So far I think that Evo has shown that any specific frequency dependence for mechanical oscillations of the eye is doubtful.

The brief and incomplete things we've actually been able to read do indicate that the eye responds to a large portion of the infrasound spectrum, yes.

Next, the numbers mentioned indicate that the wave intensity required to cause physical effects are well into levels that would cause loss of hearing.

It isn't at all clear to me what effect infrasound has on hearing.
If the frequencies of infrasound are outside the range of frequencies that the eardrum responds to high decibel levels of infrasound may be imaterial.

I would also expect that waves of this intensity could be felt throughout the body. Again, this makes me question the wave intensities required in order to produce any significant physical effects.

This would be where the standing wave aspect of it would come into play: a wave of insufficient intensity in and of itself that is reflected back on itself would result in spots where the anti-nodes combine and produce areas of double the intensity. Recall how Tandy located one spot in the shop where the effect was vastly more pronounced. If the original source of the sound was intense enough by itself he would have found the effect anywhere in the shop. Instead, he only found one spot. This indicates a standing wave situation.

Also, how could a person's eye be
vibrating but with only subtle effects? I would expect that given eye rattling one's vision would be generally affected as with Megashawn's experience.

I'm not sure what you're doubtful about here. The intensity of the vibration of the eye would correspond to the intensity of the amplitude of the sound. The greater the amplitude of the eye vibration, the greater the disturbance of vision. Megashawn was inside a small chamber with a really high amplitude sound.

Finally, I had a ghostly episode two nights ago and as discussed here. I was sitting here working and I kept getting glimpses of a gray, blurry image in my right eye's peripheral vision. when I turned and looked nothing was there. First I thought infrasound, and then I thought temporal lobe seizure, and then I realized the real culprit - a mouse. It really had me going for a couple of minutes.

Little did you realize that it was the ghost of a mouse who died during a temporal lobe seizure and which was producing infrasound. (Did you find any mouse ghost "ectoplasm? Mouse ghosts are known to leave "ectoplasm" behind in the form of small, dark, oblong "pellets".)

 

[mouseonmoon]

could have been my doppelganger--been very interested in this

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Little did you realize that it was the ghost of a mouse who died during a temporal lobe seizure and which was producing infrasound. (Did you find any mouse ghost "ectoplasm? Mouse ghosts are known to leave "ectoplasm" behind in the form of small, dark, oblong "pellets".)

ROFLMAO!

 

[zoobyshoe]

I found this much more detailed article by Tandy in which he explains his experiences and reasoning about them as he goes along, and also goes into thorough detail about the aspect of standing waves:

Live Sound International | Ghost Story: Phantoms, Vibrations and Standing Waves
Address:http://www.livesoundint.com/archives/2002/janfeb/low/low.php

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It isn't at all clear to me what effect infrasound has on hearing.
If the frequencies of infrasound are outside the range of frequencies that the eardrum responds to high decibel levels of infrasound may be imaterial.

The damage to the ear is a function of ambient pressure changes relative to the inner ear. The ear is more responsive to higher frequencies, but the large pressure changes due to the passing of a high intensity sound or infrasound wave is what damages the ear. Sound, as opposed to infrasound, is really just a matter of perception. Some of the links given already state that infrasound causes loss of hearing but at somewhat higher levels than mid range sound.

This would be where the standing wave aspect of it would come into play: a wave of insufficient intensity in and of itself that is reflected back on itself would result in spots where the anti-nodes combine and produce areas of double the intensity. Recall how Tandy located one spot in the shop where the effect was vastly more pronounced. If the original source of the sound was intense enough by itself he would have found the effect anywhere in the shop. Instead, he only found one spot. This indicates a standing wave situation.

This changes nothing. The standing wave only acts to amplify the overall intensity of the primary at a point. The intensity at a point [the observer] is what matters. According to the links posted, a person should feel the infrasound if the decibel levels are high enough to induce other effects.

I'm not sure what you're doubtful about here. The intensity of the vibration of the eye would correspond to the intensity of the amplitude of the sound. The greater the amplitude of the eye vibration, the greater the disturbance of vision. Megashawn was inside a small chamber with a really high amplitude sound.

Why would his vision only be blurred in the peripheral field? I would expect all vision to be affected…especially in a lab where people usually are found reading text and instruments.

Little did you realize that it was the ghost of a mouse who died during a temporal lobe seizure and which was producing infrasound. (Did you find any mouse ghost "ectoplasm? Mouse ghosts are known to leave "ectoplasm" behind in the form of small, dark, oblong "pellets".)

If I see any glowing mouse poop I will post an attachment.

You know, before you came along, when I saw something out of the corner of my eye I thought "mouse", or "cat", or "wind", but now I think temporal lobe seizure!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One more objection...

As yet I haven't seen one main stream scientific journal that has published Tandy's argument. The Psychical Society [published one paper] may or may not be respectable but they are clearly not in the mainstream. Since Tandy's argument is so earthly I would expect journals like Nature, Science, and even Physics Today to jump all over this...unless it is not worthy of publication...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Some of the links given already state that infrasound causes loss of hearing but at somewhat higher levels than mid range sound.

Deafness by exposure to high levels of sound is cumulative and happens over time according to the level you are exposed to. Since the level of infrasound that can damage hearing is "somewhat higher" than mid range sound, then my guess would be that he level in the cases Tandy speaks about were high enough to cause the hyperventilation, anxiety, and blurred vision, but not high enough to compromise hearing. On the other hand I don't expect that anyone has had the thought to have the hearing of the workers at he various industrial "haunting" sites checked to see if it is less than normal.

According to the links posted, a person should feel the infrasound if the decibel levels are high enough to induce other effects.

This physical feeling you seek is what the hyperventilation and anxiety are about, isn't it? I don't see why you would expect the same kind of sensation one gets standing next to a big speaker basting in the audible range.

Why would his vision only be blurred in the peripheral field?

He is feeling intense anxiety, he is hyperventilating, his eyeballs are being vibrated: I would venture to guess his periferal vision was more affected because his eyes were watering, an effect mentioned in one of the papers.

I would expect all vision to be affected…especially in a lab where people usually are found reading text and instruments.

Recall that Tandy's desk was located right next to the spot of greatest intensity. The other people only passed through that spot occasionally.

You know, before you came along, when I saw something out of the corner of my eye I thought "mouse", or "cat", or "wind", but now I think temporal lobe seizure!

My continued attempts to disseminate information about simple partial seizures, which is motivated by the desire to assure anyone who might be having a lot of them in silent bewilderment, that they are not crazy or the victim of some paranormal evil force, seems to continually backfire on me, yes. Rest assured that I have never intended to put you on edge.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Since Tandy's argument is so earthly I would expect journals like Nature, Science, and even Physics Today to jump all over this...unless it is not worthy of publication...

This is just plain uncharitable and mean.

Tandy is a guy with a very intersting theory. He knows enough about accoustics to explain his reasoning, but he is not an expert in acoustics. He has not conducted and published a formal scientific study of this phenoenon. This is a side thing to his real profession that happened to get a lot of press. Nature, Science, and Physics Today would not jump to solicite material from a non-expert with an interesting theory about a subject like "hauntings" despite having no particular objections to it, now would they?

For the record I will clearly state that I do not think the kind of "haunting" experience Tandy experienced and described has anything to do with the "haunting" you and Tsunami experienced. Your experience was signifigantly different by virtue of the olfactory element, and the sensation of weight on the foot of the bed, to name two things that have never been proposed as a part of the infrasound kind of "haunting".

I say that in case you, Tsunami, and Evo are thinking I'm interested in Tandy in an attempt to explain your experience "away", which I'm not. Honest to God, I have no leads to what happened to you beyond the hoax by building caretaker possibility I speculated about.

Edited to add: to the extent that Tandy could explain what had happened to people like the very upset cleaning lady who was quite frightened by her experience, and anyone else who has been caught unawares by an infrasound "ghost' in a creepy place, he is doing a good thing. Shut the fan off: ghost disappears; an illusion. No worries. Why should people suffer anxiety over something stupid like a wobbling fan?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
This is just plain uncharitable and mean.

I don't think so. In science we require something called peer review. He has published his work. It only appears in one journal put out by the Psychical Research Society. This along with the weakness of his claims pretty much settles this for me for now. Perhaps one day he or others will gather enough supporting evidence to justify his claims. In the mean time it seems that he is selling books and soon, ghost machines. Hmmm.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't think so.

I think so. Your "...unless it is not worthy of publication..." line is pure editorial on your part, and is intended to create the impression this is the only possible reason he hasn't been written about in those magazines.

In science we require something called peer review.

I don't see where Tandy has tried to resist any peer review.

He has published his work.It only appears in one journal put out by the Psychical Research Society.

So, he has submitted a piece to a journal he felt would be interested. They published it, and...where's the problem?

This along with the weakness of his claims pretty much settles this for me for now.

"The weakness of his claims..." again, is you editorializing. They don't look weak to me at all. I think he has made an excellent case. You yourself were impressed enough to be in the process of making your own infrasound generator when this thread began.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I think so. Your "...unless it is not worthy of publication..." line is pure editorial on your part, and is intended to create the impression this is the only possible reason he hasn't been written about in those magazines.

It was intended to convey my take on the evidence presented. The more I learn and think about this the more dubious I am of his claim. I wasn't trying to be subtle.

I don't see where Tandy has tried to resist any peer review.
So, he has submitted a piece to a journal he felt would be interested. They published it, and...where's the problem?

Mainstream journals are the proper channel for publishing a theory; not the internet, books, and fringe journals. Since I have seen none mentioned, I must assume that either he avoids a qualified review of his claims, he awaits publication while his work is reviewed, or he can't get published because his claims lack sufficient supporting evidence. Similar public maneuvers by two gents named Ponds and Fleishmann led to the cold fusion fiasco of the late 80's. They were so discredited by this breach of protocol that they effectively went into hiding. The same rules apply to Hawking, Tandy, me, and anyone else who makes public claims such as Tandy's. Is this science or not?

"The weakness of his claims..." again, is you editorializing. They don't look weak to me at all. I think he has made an excellent case. You yourself were impressed enough to be in the process of making your own infrasound generator when this thread began.

Even you agreed that his unique 18.9 Hz dependency for eye resonance seems to fail. Since this was his key test for apparitions - specifically at 18.9 Hz - his most basic claim falls apart. Also, I don't think I am being mean spirited just because we don't agree. I am highly dubious about this whole business by Tandy. I am still allowing that eventually he might prevail but for the moment I just don't see it. As I said from the start, the wave intensities required for the desired effects appear to far exceed levels that would otherwise go unnoticed; even as infrasound.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Mainstream journals are the proper channel for publishing a theory; not the internet, books, and fringe journals. Since I have seen none mentioned, I must assume that either he avoids a qualified review of his claims, he awaits publication while his work is reviewed, or he can't get published because his claims lack sufficient supporting evidence.

This is where you are being uncharitable. As I tried to point out before, he is just a guy with an interesting theory which is well outside his own actual profession. He has a certain amount of evidence to show, but he has not conducted a formal study that he could write up nd present to any hard science journals. He presents nothing at the level of a "claim". What he has could be called a "theory" at the very best.

"Infrasound + spooky place = "haunting" is a notion that is almost certainly of so little interest to mainstream science that the reaction is not that it lacks credibiity, but that it evokes a response of "Could be, I suppose. So what?"

Infrasound, from the nature of the studies presented, is of interest to people concerned with occupaional safety. These people have no interest in whether or not it might have this pseudo-paranormal effect in old dungeons. The only people who have any real concern are paranormal believers and skeptics.

I am not aware if he has submitted anything to any hard science journals and been rejected but if he's has I would say it is either because he didn't conduct a formal study under specific conditions that people could recreate and test, or, it was because none of them deemed the subject to be particularly important.

Similar public maneuvers by two gents named Ponds and Fleishmann led to the cold fusion fiasco of the late 80's. They were so discredited by this breach of protocol that they effectively went into hiding.

The cold fusion guys were not discredited because they did not publish in the proper journals, Ivan. They did go through the peer review process and were discredited because no one could replicate their results. Someone who tried, who had read their material, figured out the mistake they had made. Breach of protocol was not the offense that discredited them, it was the fact their claims were plain wrong.

Cold fusion, also, was important.

Even you agreed that his unique 18.9 Hz dependency for eye resonance seems to fail. Since this was his key test for apparitions - specifically at 18.9 Hz - his most basic claim falls apart.

First off the 18.9 hz did not fail. He discovered that frequency in his workshop. Apparently it works, according to what he read in the NASA paper. The difference is that the other papers for which we found abstracts and from which we have second hand quotes, maintain that the eyes can be affected by many frequencies in the infrasonic range. This doesn't debunk Tandy at all. It increases the range of infrasound at which his theory might be accurate.

Also, I don't think I am being mean spirited just because we don't agree.

I don't either. Normally you are charitable in all disagreements with me and others. I found that one post to be an exception.

I am highly dubious about this whole business by Tandy. I am still allowing that eventually he might prevail but for the moment I just don't see it. As I said from the start, the wave intensities required for the desired effects appear to far exceed levels that would otherwise go unnoticed; even as infrasound.

Your impression of the wave intensities required come from the abstracts and brief quotes from papers none of us has read. The studies seem to disagree with each other (par for the course), and I suspect this is due to the fact that each was conducted under different circumstances for very different reasons and motivations. None studied the effects of infrasound as produced by improperly mounted industrial exhaust fans in shops of the size and construction in which Tandy had his experience.

 

[mouseonmoon]

Ivan:
===
"Infrasound + spooky place = "haunting" is a notion that is almost certainly of so little interest to mainstream science that the reaction is not that it lacks credibiity, but that it evokes a response of "Could be, I suppose. So what?"
===

I'm afriad you're right--but even worse, what's the chance of getting 'funded' if you even mention 'ghosts' or 'UFOs'...

One of my favorite 'science' stories is about the 'French Academy of Science' declaring 'rocks don't fall from the sky'---