We Can Record Afterlife Voices, but We MUST Be Careful

Share this article on social media:

We have recordings of people in the afterlife

Researchers today are recording the voices of people living in the life after this life. The loved ones on this side of life validate the recordings based on the content only the person in spirit would know, mentions of current experiences the person still on Earth is having currently, the structure of the voice, idioms and common phrases the person used while on Earth, and other qualities validating that the voice is of the person the loved one knows, who is very much alive in the life after this life. The procedure is called electronic voice phenomena (EVP) or instrumental transcommunication (ITC).

The voices are actually magnetic tracks those in the afterlife have placed on the recorder. When the tracks are played back, listeners can hear the voices of those in the next life. The person in spirit focuses thoughts on the device they have in the next life that allows people there to speak to people still on Earth. They do not speak audibly using vocal cords. They use their thoughts only. The device then turns their thoughts into electronic tracks that are laid on the digital recorder or hard drive of a computer. When the tracks are played, the person’s voice is heard. Even though the person is not speaking as in using a microphone, the voice is genuinely the person in the afterlife.

This is an example. When researcher Sheri Perl first used the Portuguese voice chapped up to create the gibberish vocal sounds, she was not sure the speakers would be able to create English words, so she asked them whether they could speak in English. You will hear a child’s response.

The clearest examples of voices recorded by Sheri and other researchers such as Sonia Rinaldi in Brazil are made with a background of vocal sounds with no words in them, just meaningless syllables the researchers call “gibberish.” This is an example of the background gibberish:

Those in the next life speaking to us transform the vocal sounds into understandable words. The researchers play the background gibberish and records the sound. As the researchers are recording, they ask questions to the person in the next life. They hear nothing as they are asking the questions. When they play back the recording, the answers to questions follow or precede the questions. The technicians in spirit working with the person speaking transform their thoughts into electronic tracks on the recorder. The voices can be as clear as if the person in spirit was speaking through a microphone.

The background gibberish is most effective when it uses the individual in spirit’s voice scrambled so no words are in the voice. Another effective set of background vocal noises is scrambled voice appropriate for the speaker: a child’s voice scrambled for children in spirit, a woman’s voice scrambled for women, a man’s voice scrambled for men.

To hear more recordings, go to this link: https://afterlifeinstitute.org/itc-evp/

We Must Have Rigorous Requirements

The recordings must be so clear that anyone listening to the words would agree that they hear the same words others hear. It is important that the listener is not “prompted” by being given the possible words before listening to them. The prompts introduce bias that contaminates the effort to record voices.

This is an example. Listen to the recording repeated a number of times. Look at the words in the left column on the screen, one after another. Decide which set of words is actually in the recording.

You can support this effort to give people the truth about the reality of the afterlife with your $6 contribution.

You likely felt several or all of the words could be in the sound. Cueing the listener before listening by stating the words the researcher seems to hear biases what other listeners feel they are hearing. 

The same is true for whole phrases and sentences. Multiple listeners must hear the same words clearly without receiving the prompt of words in text before listening to the recording. If listeners are prompted before listening to the recording, they can feel they hear the same words the researcher was hearing.

This is a demonstration of what can happen when a researcher listening to a recording is prompted about what to hear. The researcher asked people to write what they hear in a recording of people shouting a short sentence. The speaker cued the listeners in to the words “That is embarrassing,” so most listeners said that is what they heard. But if the speaker had prompted the listeners to hear any of the following, some would have said they heard these words:

That isn’t my receipt.

Lactates in pharmacy.

Baptism piracy.

I’m chasing martian.

Bart Simpson bouncing.

Watch the video demonstration that follows. As you hear the words, look at the list above to see if you can hear each of the alternative sets of words.

Researchers Must Accept Only Contents All Listeners Agree to Without Prompting

Today, many EVP/ITC researchers are suggesting that recordings have words embedded in their recordings, but when other people listen, they hear nothing or something entirely different. They claim they are capturing afterlife voices. But that is not valid EVP/ITC practice. 

This is an example. A researcher was sure she heard something in the gibberish. See if you can hear a response after her question. Ask, “Would all listeners hear these words without prompting?”

The researcher thought she heard “train your mom.” That is not acceptable EVP/ITC. A single recording must not have several interpretations by different listeners. Acceptable quality EVP/ITC must be clearly identifiable word for word by any listener, with no cues about possible words.

Following are recordings of the quality we must require to accept them as valid EVP/ITC. You will hear a response after her question. Ask, “Would all listeners hear these words?”

Researcher Sonia Rinaldi: “Would you like to leave a message to your mother?”

Little girl: _____ [What do you hear?]

The words, “Mommy, I can talk,” are clear. That is acceptable EVP/ITC. Following are more examples. In this example, a father called into the researcher, Sonia Rinaldi, to ask questions. His daughter’s response follows.
Father: “I am sure you’re doing great. We love you and miss you.”

Kelsie: “Daddy, you know, love you”

In this example, Sonia asks a series of questions to create a recording to give to the parents of a little girl, Jasmine, in spirit.
Sonia: “Jasmine, what you would like to say to your dad?”
Jasmine: “I love you.”

Sonia: “Say something beautiful to your mother.”

Jasmine: “Miss you.”

Sonia: “What else you would like to say?”

Jasmine: “Don’t cry.”

Factors Such as Age Affect Hearing

Following is an example of how a person’s physiology can affect what they hear in a recording. People were asked to listen to a recording and say whether they heard “yanny” or “laurel.” Remarkably, different people hear one or the other. The audio experts suggest this difference in what people hear is a result of  differences in hearing ability with age. This video explains the problem.

Conclusion for EVP and ITC

Researchers who record EVP/ITC must accept only words all listeners agree to without prompting before listening. Even then, as with “yanny” or “laurel,” at times listeners will disagree.  As a result, we must add conditions to evaluating the recordings:

  • A recording must be so clear that multiple people listening to it agree to most of the words, without prompting.
  • The response must immediately precede or follow a question. The reason it may precede it is that the person in spirit is responding to the thought of the question, which precedes vocalizing. Often the person in spirit will respond before the question is asked.
  • The response must pertain to the question. Recordings on fishing expeditions that record random sounds such as a Ghost Box or Frank’s Box result in listeners making what they appear to hear fit some context. The response must pertain only to the question or statement immediately preceding it or after it.

Recordings that do not fit these criteria may be interesting, but are not to be presented as valid examples of EVP/ITC.

 

Clairaudience as a Special Case

Some people have a psychic ability called “clairaudience.” They are able to hear words others do not hear. Usually, these words originate in the person’s mind with no sound source. But they may also seem to come from within some sound source. When the clairaudient hears words coming from a sound source that others do not hear, that person may be exercising clairaudience, and the messages from people living in the afterlife may be valid. They must not be used as examples of valid EVP/ITC, however.

We have recordings of people in the afterlife

Researchers today are recording the voices of people living in the life after this life. The loved ones on this side of life validate the recordings based on the content only the person in spirit would know, mentions of current experiences the person still on Earth is having currently, the structure of the voice, idioms and common phrases the person used while on Earth, and other qualities validating that the voice is of the person the loved one knows, who is very much alive in the life after this life. The procedure is called electronic voice phenomena (EVP) or instrumental transcommunication (ITC).

The voices are actually magnetic tracks those in the afterlife have placed on the recorder. When the tracks are played back, listeners can hear the voices of those in the next life. The person in spirit focuses thoughts on the device they have in the next life that allows people there to speak to people still on Earth. They do not speak audibly using vocal cords. They use their thoughts only. The device then turns their thoughts into electronic tracks that are laid on the digital recorder or hard drive of a computer. When the tracks are played, the person’s voice is heard. Even though the person is not speaking as in using a microphone, the voice is genuinely the person in the afterlife.

This is an example. When researcher Sheri Perl first used the Portuguese voice chapped up to create the gibberish vocal sounds, she was not sure the speakers would be able to create English words, so she asked them whether they could speak in English. You will hear a child’s response.

The clearest examples of voices recorded by Sheri and other researchers such as Sonia Rinaldi in Brazil are made with a background of vocal sounds with no words in them, just meaningless syllables the researchers call “gibberish.” This is an example of the background gibberish:

Those in the next life speaking to us transform the vocal sounds into understandable words. The researchers play the background gibberish and records the sound. As the researchers are recording, they ask questions to the person in the next life. They hear nothing as they are asking the questions. When they play back the recording, the answers to questions follow or precede the questions. The technicians in spirit working with the person speaking transform their thoughts into electronic tracks on the recorder. The voices can be as clear as if the person in spirit was speaking through a microphone.

The background gibberish is most effective when it uses the individual in spirit’s voice scrambled so no words are in the voice. Another effective set of background vocal noises is scrambled voice appropriate for the speaker: a child’s voice scrambled for children in spirit, a woman’s voice scrambled for women, a man’s voice scrambled for men.

To hear more recordings, go to this link: https://afterlifeinstitute.org/itc-evp/

We Must Have Rigorous Requirements

The recordings must be so clear that anyone listening to the words would agree that they hear the same words others hear. It is important that the listener is not “prompted” by being given the possible words before listening to them. The prompts introduce bias that contaminates the effort to record voices.

This is an example. Listen to the recording repeated a number of times. Look at the words in the left column on the screen, one after another. Decide which set of words is actually in the recording.

You can support this effort to give people the truth about the reality of the afterlife with your $6 contribution.

You likely felt several or all of the words could be in the sound. Cueing the listener before listening by stating the words the researcher seems to hear biases what other listeners feel they are hearing. 

The same is true for whole phrases and sentences. Multiple listeners must hear the same words clearly without receiving the prompt of words in text before listening to the recording. If listeners are prompted before listening to the recording, they can feel they hear the same words the researcher was hearing.

This is a demonstration of what can happen when a researcher listening to a recording is prompted about what to hear. The researcher asked people to write what they hear in a recording of people shouting a short sentence. The speaker cued the listeners in to the words “That is embarrassing,” so most listeners said that is what they heard. But if the speaker had prompted the listeners to hear any of the following, some would have said they heard these words:

That isn’t my receipt.

Lactates in pharmacy.

Baptism piracy.

I’m chasing martian.

Bart Simpson bouncing.

Watch the video demonstration that follows. As you hear the words, look at the list above to see if you can hear each of the alternative sets of words.

Researchers Must Accept Only Contents All Listeners Agree to Without Prompting

Today, many EVP/ITC researchers are suggesting that recordings have words embedded in their recordings, but when other people listen, they hear nothing or something entirely different. They claim they are capturing afterlife voices. But that is not valid EVP/ITC practice. 

This is an example. A researcher was sure she heard something in the gibberish. See if you can hear a response after her question. Ask, “Would all listeners hear these words without prompting?”

The researcher thought she heard “train your mom.” That is not acceptable EVP/ITC. A single recording must not have several interpretations by different listeners. Acceptable quality EVP/ITC must be clearly identifiable word for word by any listener, with no cues about possible words.

Following are recordings of the quality we must require to accept them as valid EVP/ITC. You will hear a response after her question. Ask, “Would all listeners hear these words?”

Researcher Sonia Rinaldi: “Would you like to leave a message to your mother?”

Little girl: _____ [What do you hear?]

The words, “Mommy, I can talk,” are clear. That is acceptable EVP/ITC. Following are more examples. In this example, a father called into the researcher, Sonia Rinaldi, to ask questions. His daughter’s response follows.
Father: “I am sure you’re doing great. We love you and miss you.”

Kelsie: “Daddy, you know, love you”

In this example, Sonia asks a series of questions to create a recording to give to the parents of a little girl, Jasmine, in spirit.
Sonia: “Jasmine, what you would like to say to your dad?”
Jasmine: “I love you.”

Sonia: “Say something beautiful to your mother.”

Jasmine: “Miss you.”

Sonia: “What else you would like to say?”

Jasmine: “Don’t cry.”

Factors Such as Age Affect Hearing

Following is an example of how a person’s physiology can affect what they hear in a recording. People were asked to listen to a recording and say whether they heard “yanny” or “laurel.” Remarkably, different people hear one or the other. The audio experts suggest this difference in what people hear is a result of  differences in hearing ability with age. This video explains the problem.

Conclusion for EVP and ITC

Researchers who record EVP/ITC must accept only words all listeners agree to without prompting before listening. Even then, as with “yanny” or “laurel,” at times listeners will disagree.  As a result, we must add conditions to evaluating the recordings:

  • A recording must be so clear that multiple people listening to it agree to most of the words, without prompting.
  • The response must immediately precede or follow a question. The reason it may precede it is that the person in spirit is responding to the thought of the question, which precedes vocalizing. Often the person in spirit will respond before the question is asked.
  • The response must pertain to the question. Recordings on fishing expeditions that record random sounds such as a Ghost Box or Frank’s Box result in listeners making what they appear to hear fit some context. The response must pertain only to the question or statement immediately preceding it or after it.

Recordings that do not fit these criteria may be interesting, but are not to be presented as valid examples of EVP/ITC.

 

Clairaudience as a Special Case

Some people have a psychic ability called “clairaudience.” They are able to hear words others do not hear. Usually, these words originate in the person’s mind with no sound source. But they may also seem to come from within some sound source. When the clairaudient hears words coming from a sound source that others do not hear, that person may be exercising clairaudience, and the messages from people living in the afterlife may be valid. They must not be used as examples of valid EVP/ITC, however.

Join now

Become a member

Join Seek Reality Online and You will get access to our premium content