Can you pull these out of that person's website you list and show them? I don't see anything except supposition.Originally posted by zoobyshoe
and quotes what these other sources say about the effect of infrasound on the eye.
"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;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.
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)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."
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.
So, I'm getting the distinct feeling you, or someone you know has had a "haunting"?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".
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.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.
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.Originally posted by zoobyshoe
So, Evo, ever seen a ghost?
Too funny!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.
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.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.
It isn't at all clear to me what effect infrasound has on hearing.Next, the numbers mentioned indicate that the wave intensity required to cause physical effects are well into levels that would cause loss of hearing.
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.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.
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.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.
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".)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.
ROFLMAO!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".)
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.
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.
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.
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".)
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.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.
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.According to the links posted, a person should feel the infrasound if the decibel levels are high enough to induce other effects.
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.Why would his vision only be blurred in the peripheral field?
Recall that Tandy's desk was located right next to the spot of greatest intensity. The other people only passed through that spot occasionally.I would expect all vision to be affected…especially in a lab where people usually are found reading text and instruments.
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.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!
This is just plain uncharitable and mean.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...
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
This is just plain uncharitable and mean.
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.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't think so.
I don't see where Tandy has tried to resist any peer review.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.
"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.This along with the weakness of his claims pretty much settles this for me for now.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.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.
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.I don't either. Normally you are charitable in all disagreements with me and others. I found that one post to be an exception.Also, I don't think I am being mean spirited just because we don't agree.
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.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.