Equipment Review
Part 2
Brandy Stark, November 2008
For the past month, the SPIRITS have tried to use the Puck as often as possible. Repeated tests were done to see how it reacted to different situations. Locations were selected that were reputed to be haunted as well as not haunted, and the Puck was used with a single individual and with a group. Two tests were done on official SPIRITS investigations, 4 locations were single-member investigations, and the rest were random location tests. By the end of the month, it was tested at UT three times, one time at three seperate "haunted" locations in Gainesville, four times in a single paranormal investigation at the Heritage Hotel, one time at my own home, used twice at 62nd Terrace and demonstrated at at Eckerd College and Channel 10 studios.
The results were mixed as the Puck behaves oddly. Two of the three tests at UT produced similiar words and phrases, which were not matched by other investigations. The Heritage Hotel also had a similar effect with church-ladened words. The Puck would not work at all in the Gainesville Cemetery, though the EMF meter spiked indicating an entity that wanted to communicate with me. Twice during investigations, and one seperate time, the Puck started "answering" questions, then simply stopped responding, though EMF was still detected. It also "answered" in non-haunted locations (Eckerd and Channel 13).
The words do appear to be quite random, but the interesting aspect is how the themes of the words seem to sometimes match. UT had a reoccuring issue with "face" (saving face?), "cattle", "coast", "video", "Larry" and "east". In the third session, however, the "entity" seemed flirtatious. As two weeks elapsed between tests (I had consistently tested the same day of week and time prior to that) I asked if the entity missed me. It answered "faith" and the remainder of the word selection did not match the first two sessions, even with prompting. The Heritage Hotel had a series of words dealing with the church (faith, church, falling faith, etc.) but also liked "tilt", "coast" and "east". Gainesville had an issue with fallen faith, "behind" (i.e., behind the building) and, possibly, a bad relationship. In several locations "Kansas" came up, as did "rapture" ("Where will the rapture happen? "Kansas"). A few times the Puck left people in fits of laughter, as at the Heritage when, as the computer was perched on a bed, the phrase "deep rapture" came up following another rather odd phrase ("Harry blow").
With a limited word bank, some questions arise. If an entity uses the words to respond to questions, is it answering phonetically? If a word sounds similar to what it wants to say, does it use that word? Take, for example, "night" and "knight" or "right" and "write". If an entity wanted to say that it "writes on knights" but can only say "right night" via the Puck this can, theoretically, throw off an investigator's interpretation. Or, if it wanted to say something advanced, like "genome" and could only find "gnome" then the Puck's limited vocabulary can drastically alter the meaning of response. Additionally, proper nouns can be a problem. "Larry" showed up several times at UT as "Sandra" did at Gainesville. Yet, there are not many proper names listed in the Puck for an entity to select from so these may have to become standard substitutes for other proper terms. The same may apply to Kansas, which may simply becomes a term meaning not literally FROM Kansas but "from out of this state" or "not in this state of being."
The phonetic setting is meant to take up some of this slack, but the syllables move so quickly that the computerized voice becomes nothing but noise. To date, I have not been able to make out any words with the syllables unless the Puck is set to allow for multiple voices to simultaneously speak. Then the issue becomes if these words are simply the end statements belonging to various voices; as each voice concludes, it finishes a full word as phonetic sounds are attached to the words in the dictionary. Also, the Puck's program does not seem to record phonetic sessions as it does word sessions. It's harder to hear and, without the visual re-enforcement, much harder to track what is being said with this setting.
However, the jury is still out on the usefulness of the Puck. It is another research tool but does it serve as a combination of ink blot/synchronicity in the sense of allowing investigators to look into the random words for meaning? Or is it a new way of communicating with the dead utilizing a limited word bank that matches to controlled EM fluctuations? That remains to be seen.
Equipment Review
Part 1
Brandy Stark, October 2008
In recent months, the SPIRITS of St. Petersburg has undergone a transformation of sorts. We have worked to gain some new equipment for the team, including an official laptop with EVP software, microphone and speakers. The other purpose of the laptop was to support our newest acquisition: The Paranormal Puck. This little device was first introduced to the team at our Florida Ghost Gathering by our guest of honor, Patrick Burns. It, and its sibling, the Ovilus (which the SPIRITS hopes to order in October) have been featured on Paranormal State, Haunting Evidence, and by the Travel Channel’s GAC group.
Its odd name comes from its small box-like shape (it sort of looks like a hockey puck). However, don’t let its small size fool you. The Paranormal Puck is a small gift from above as it monitors temperature, EMF and even offers a voice capacity via computer screen. It is a wonderful tool for stationary readings during investigations. The software that comes with the Puck allows the user to set alarms should the EM reach certain levels as well. With a screen capture setting the data can be collected and stored for later viewing.
The most interesting aspect of this device, however, is its voice capacity. The Puck has 3,000 words programmed into its memory. Based on the fluctuation of EM fields, these words are synchronized with the field. Users can ask questions by typing them into the computer and wait for the Puck to initiate a response. The voice can be reset to include phonetics as well as words, and programming allows for as many as four voices to speak at once. The phonetic program, however, can produce sounds that are hard to interpret through the computerized voice so the word or multi-voice responses appear to produce the best results.
In order to get the Puck, however, its creator has instituted a strict policy. Forms must be filled out acknowledging user’s sanity of mind, that the Puck is for use for entertainment purposes only, and that it be kept away from children or people that may be harmed by seeing it function. It is not avowed that the words have any meaning beyond coincidence, which makes sense regardless of belief. Random selection of words, controlled or uncontrolled, can produce phrases that make “sense” or that can allow for interpretation. The bottom line regarding the Puck’s voice function: It is what it is.
We have experimented with the Puck in September but with October approaching, this little device is about to get quite the workout. A secondary report updating its use will follow for November.