Frank’s Ghost Box …WTF? Seriously, have we gone mad?
This device was created by Frank Sumption (assumption) several years ago as a means to further his interest in EVP research. Frank began experimenting with EVP in the year 2000 which led to using a computer program called EVP maker invented by the German researcher Stefan Bion. Okay, there you have it and it belongs in the garbage with the EMF meter, tampered flashlights (like Jason Hawes uses), and EVP tools.
Seriously folks, do you think that ghost sit around and wait for your “call in” using the Frank’s Box? I can hear (NOT) the unlucky ghost now, “Hey, look, it’s Jason Hawes on the line everyone let’s “tune in” and scare the crap out of him.”
Frank Sumption made the box using radio, electric and computer components. He made the first box in 2002, after being prompted to do so from the spirit world (how did he communicate to the spirits without the box? LMAO). At the time, he made less than 3 dozen, and eventually gave a few of them out to selective participants so that they could test them out for themselves to see if the boxes could be used to communicate with spirits from the other side.
Several things are coming into play here, screwballs (arrogant) that prey on the chronically ignorant and vulnerable, self delusion (possibly schizophrenia – “I heard specific voices”).
Yes, people like Chris Moon who know these people are in a vulnerable position and exploit their appetite to communicate with uncle Charlie and aunt Emma. Give me a break and stop wasting my time for you’ll never convince me the dead can communicate using an AM receiver. Hell, you’ll never convince me the DEAD are ready to communicate because they’re dead you mad idiot! Hey, wait, maybe I can get my grandfather’s old CB radio out for the closet and talk to my DEAD relatives?
Stop spending your money on these gadgets and rely on your senses.
It’s laughable at what some dimwitted people will believe! Frank’s Box ….OMG, LMAO!
Report this comment
lol! nice button..
Report this comment
I have to say that I was not a fan of the Ghost Box, and that I often voiced my opinion to my team in its use. We did however continue to use it to see what might happen. Each time this device has won me over a little more. During the investigations in which we have used it, there were things stated that were directly related to that investigation. OK still not a big selling point on the product, but when you ask if it can name all the people in the room (all with uncommon names) and it does and then ask to describe people like who is wearing the red hat (and it answers correctly) it did grab my attention. On one such case, a clients ex boyfriend was shot (or so he told everyone), questions were asked and answers were he shot himself (later in the week the police were looking for him as they discovered that he shot himself and were looking to arrest him for false police report). Also, in the same case, saying this guys name, her sons name, her sons teachers name and Tuesday came to be known, the client found out the next day that (which was Tuesday) that her ex tried to pick up her son from school, and this teacher wouldn’t allow him to take him.
I think it depends on each person and how they feel it works. I tried the EVP Maker software also, being a free download, and found that making my own file, of letters and numbers, helped even more because there were no pre-existing words to cloud ones judgement. Yet when we used that program, we could still hear names being said.
Again, I think its a matter of personal opinion on whether or not this device works. My team can believe that I am sitting here defending the ghost box, but I have to say, it has one me over just a bit.
Report this comment
@Jim L:
Great site too.
Report this comment
I made my own because I was curious about it as well.
Mfernino, I’m with you on one thing. It did win me over a little, and it has said some pretty startling things that were relevant to the situation. It has also said some cuss words that I’m positive have been banned by the FCC.
Do I believe it’s the spirit of a dead person coming through? No.
There are just too many variables to the device that make it unreliable as a source of “proof” of anything.
Report this comment
Unseen, I agree, allthough I have been won over on this device, I will not give what ever evidence that we capture from it as 100 percent proof of anything. I dont know what causes it to do this, but it does work, spirit? maybe…coincidence? possible.
We will present our finding to our clients but we do not tell them this is 100 percent. We just dont believe in holding anything back from them, therefore we make sure they are given everything.
Its still is a cool idea though.
Report this comment
If a spirit would choose to communicate this way, it would not only have to “speak” in electromagnetic waves. It would also have to either amplitude-modulate or frequency-modulate a high frequency carrier wave with its speech wave to create a receivable AM or FM radio signal, respectively. Also, the spirit would have to alter the carrier frequency such that it follows the the radio’s up-and-down scanning process (Why not just talk on a stationary AM/FM frequency?).
It sure seems nice of the ghosts that they are communicating in such a complicated way just so it happens to match these “investigators’” radios – oops – ghost boxes…
The only unexplainable thing going on here is that some people actually believe that the results of this process are anything else than random snippets of radio shows.
Even the AAEVP comments negatively on radio sweeping, saying: “We can say that it produces way too many false positives to be an acceptable tool for transcommunication.”
Coming from guys who even believe in ectoplasm, this translates into “This tool is the biggest bullshit conceivable”.
Report this comment
mfernino:
Would you please post a link so we may see if we hear the same words that you heard? Don’t post what you think it said in the same link. Let us listen first without prompts. Then we can check to see if the words match.
Report this comment
Although I do not–and will not utilize the ‘Ghost Box’ because it is so controversial and just gives more ammo to the skeptics this has to be one of the most opinionated, close-minded articles I’ve ever read. As I said: we need our critics to keep us honest–so keep up the good work!
JOE
Report this comment
Victoria…I will put something together soon, right now my team and I currently have quite a few investigations that we are working on.
We have our evidence pages on our website with our video and such, but as I wrote before, we give the client all the information we collected, however, like Joe says above, this device gives more ammo to the skeptics, we never include these in our evidence files.
Give me some time and as soon as I am done with the current case files, I will put it together.
Again, I wanted to reiterate the fact that I was a huge skeptic of this device when our team first picked one up. I did not agree with it, and felt that you can manipulate it with what you want to hear. I do find however the EVP Maker to be because you have control in what your file says, and if something was to come over that wasnt in that file is more “proof”.
I will work on this as soon as possible.
Marci
Report this comment
mfernino, I am currently working on a project that will have definitive statistics regarding the device. It involves several teams collaborating their efforts asking a series of controlled questions to the box to finally put to rest what the statistics tell us. Are you interested in participating? It is a highly controlled experiment and will involve asking very specific questions during several hundred sessions for each team. The goal being to prove or disprove how well the box actually works. I personally believe we won’t find any proof that spirits are communicating to us through the device, but may find that something is indeed attempting to communicate. I only say this because of my own personal experiences, but may be proved wrong.
Either way, it is a genuine controlled scientific test. As of now we are deciding what specific questions to ask and what answers we would consider to be an actual response. If you are interested in the research, let me know. I will get ahold of you.
Report this comment
I think there is a 20 dollar radio tuner you can buy from Radio Shack that can be easily modified to continually scan in a loop which is basically what this device does …it is a fun novelty item but little more(imho) ….
Report this comment
I bought one for my 13 yr old nephew who is into ghosts. How do I set up a scenario, or put him near an object that will create sounds for him?
Report this comment
Are you serious? This comment is a joke right?
Report this comment
Then there are those of us who don’t go looking for this shit… I never thought I’d see something i couldn’t explain til I was 27, and it hasn’t stopped since — including anyone nearby — spanning 4 states. Fun stuff.
Maybe I could sell some idiot on eBay a 3 day tour tethered to my hip for his weekend-warrior thrill seeking.
Sad.
Report this comment
Real scientific! Something doesn’t fit your idea of what’s real and resonable, and without testing it, or trying it, you condemn it. Just another nasty negative know it all that wants to control what anyone can experience or even think about. Y’all are more like the taliban than the taliban. Just for commenting I’ll be labeled insane, how dare I think for myself!
I’ve been doing this stuff for ten years, but you, and people like you would have the rest of world believe I’m so stupid and ignorant that I can’t even tell what’s real. Well the box is real, it works and something talks through it. So go tell the thousands of people that have experienced that they all fools and only your kind can say what’s ok to use and think about.
Report this comment
I doubt this is Frank for he’d at least spell his name correctly. Nice try!
Report this comment
I apologize for the angry outburst. Obvioulsy it falls on deaf ears anyway. I think it’s an ego response on my part to being called insane by the ignorant.
F-S
Report this comment
@Frank sumption:
And in that angry response you equate detractors to The Taliban? …
Report this comment
@admin:
This might be the real Frank Sumption. Incorrect grammar and misspelled words are quite common in Frank’s writing. His posts here also reflect the real Frank’s antagonistic and arrogant view directed at anyone who is skeptical of his beloved ‘ghost box’.
According to the real Frank, the ‘ghost box’ can enable contact with extraterrestrials too. If he comes back, maybe Frank can tell us a little bit more about the alien encounter he had with his ‘ghost box’. It must have been quite an honor for Frank to find out his “other” identity and names; like “purple alien girl”, “Purple Princess”, and “Kiera”.
Report this comment
How did this get in something called “featured articles”? This isn’t an article, it’s an editorial piece, and not particularly well written. How about citing sources, or having a bit of logical continuity instead of just throwing random statements out there and drawing conclusions that have nothing to do with your previous statements anyway?
Seriously, how can you debunk anything if your own methods lack some kind of logical scientific coherency? This “ghost box” thing does sound like trash, but that’s an obvious common sense conclusion. The two random sentences before that statement aren’t even relevant to it.
In other words, SciFake claims it is exposing fraud and fakery. This “article” doesn’t expose anything — it’s just a rant.
Report this comment
Got your attention! Thanks for reading.
Report this comment
@Andrew W.:
Please elaborate on what precisely constitutes “logical continuity” and how this implied cohesion would qualify this thread to labeled as an “article” as opposed to an “editorial piece” since semantics seem to be such a huge point of contention for you…perhaps then an “editorial” header will be added to satisfy all the nitpicking, anal drones in the future
blessings and such!
-GodOfWar-
Report this comment
Hi,
To clarify: I’m not trying to nitpick for the sake of nitpicking, nor am I attempting to play some sort of semantic game. I understand why my distinction between the terms “article” and “editorial” seems ambiguous, though. That’s my fault.
I just discovered scifake, and I applaud the concept. Judging from the “exposing fraud and fakery” tagline, I assumed that the tone of the site should be more scientific than accusatory. When I say “article” I mean an entry that follows that idea: supporting your main idea with relevant supporting ideas and facts.
That’s also what I mean when I refer to logical continuity — that is, each statement logically supports your conclusion, usually building toward it as you write. In this process, random thoughts that don’t support the main idea will generally weaken your article or argument. This is what I was attempting to point out.
It seems to me that if this site is as focused on “exposing fakery and fraud”as it claims then actually making sound logical points instead of random thoughts and accusations can only help that cause. That is why I spoke up. If I was mistaken in this, then I apologize.
Personally, I don’t feel that expecting an actual logical argument rather than a series of random statements qualifies me as either anal or a drone, but whatever.
Report this comment
Oh yes… you wanted to know about the “editorial” side of things. An editorial is simply an opinion piece, and while they’re perfectly fine for what they are, the authors aren’t necessarily obligated to support their opinions with facts. Still, the best editorial authors will attempt to support their conclusions with a chain of sound logic.
That’s why I said earlier this was an editorial piece rather than an “article” (i.e., news article). That’s all.
Report this comment
@Andrew W.:
Thanks for the clarification(s)and while I do commend you for your altruistic commitment to help rid the world of paranormal fakery by way of post-editing posted editorials, I have to ask you why a topic like the “Ghost Box” that you yourself conceded was likely and “obviously” “trash” requires anything more than a “rant”? …especially if the rant is compendious in it’s comported conviction and invokes a robust pursuant debate or conversion in it’s wake…I do retract the “anal drone” reference, but I encourage you to do some back reading and you will find that the there are plenty of articles and discussions here that are both cogent and compelling…enough so that they have attracted attention and participation from the likes of: Jason Hawes, Donna lacroix, Brit Griffith and other para-celebs of lesser or greater degrees of notoriety or ignobility …
(I wonder if it is considered poor taste to drop the names of some that I’ve crucified and lambasted so relentlessly in the past?)
-GodOfWar-
Report this comment
@Frank sumption:
Frank is not crazy or wrong. People have to just be open to the possibility that there are things that we just can not explain by scientific methods. Keep up the good work Frank! They will break down and try it for themselves eventually just out of curiosity and then they will know for themselves what is real and what is crazy, but they still won’t believe it because it is scary as all get out.
Report this comment