Frank’s Box - A Brief Commentary

After having viewed an episode of Paranormal State where the team instigated contact via a "Frank's Box", I became curious about the device. So I've been researching Frank's Box and other ITC forms for this and upcoming blogs. I haven't used a Frank's Box personally but have talked to a few people who've either used it or been around one.


On the basis of how a Frank's Box work -- it's a modulation and scanning between the AM/FM frequencies and the white and pink noise spectrum, usually only lasting seconds dependent on the basis of the algorithm that the scanning system is protocolled to use. It is in these small spurts of static and broken syllabics that an entity is supposed to be able to capitalize and generate words for
the user to interpret.


Since the Frank's Box does use "in use" frequencies that's where a bit of debate on the credibility lies. Some also argue that cell phones (post-1990's models do not operate within the frequency scanned) and wireless household phones (would have to be pre-1990's to be on the radio band) are contributing to the words popping up. Technology that it may intercept are specifically low band
operators -- existing radio stations, hand held radio sets, baby monitors, some children's toys and ham radios. So with the consideration of these modern encroachments onto an experimental device, the recovery of fallacious responses has to be considered.


Using a Frank's Box also creates the translation/comprehension debate. Largely an investigator is trying to interpret a staticy word, phrase or burst. What one person may interpret as a possible response by an entity using the static may to another sound of pure static. The interpretation is, for the most, purely subjective. Based on ones' demographic and semantics, interpretation of the
Frank's Box encounter may and most likely will vary leaving doubtful evidence.


An additional issue with the Frank's Box is validating the response. Not only verifying the fact but being able to support the device through other methods of investigation. Running of secondary recording equipment might provide this validation. Duplicating the session without the Frank's Box and using other equipment and attaining is the same response will provide additional validation.

Research into the answer and the location may reveal the responses accuracy. Validation of the information attained via the Frank's Box will be crucial to its' accuracy and its' evidentiary property.


Another issue with Frank's Box that's been discussed a lot lately -- repeatable/reproduceable results. Getting an answer to a question once is fine. Rephrase that question and get the same answer is better. Come back a whole different number of times- and get it again -- that's grand! Establishing a successful series of reproduceable results is the best way to develop the Frank's Box as a reliable form of evidence. At present, I've not encountered anyone who has experienced this success unquestionably.


Frank's Box and the other ITC formats are open to so much interpretation. Establishing a series of guidelines/standards like what was done for EVP is highly suggested and needed. Reproducing "successes" numerous times - also highly necessitated to generate a background of reliability. Being able to validate the information and creating a record of the success is also necessary.


Personally --there are too many variables in the use and interpretation with Frank's Box at this point. As evidence-- it should not be proffered by itself -- if you can back it up with other recordings and such, maybe. Too many variables -- including the subjectivity of the investigator -- are standing in the way of the Frank's Box being considered a valuable evidentiary device.



USEFUL LINKS:

http://www.spiritsearchsociety.com/theghostbox.pdf
Schematic of a "Frank's Box"

http://www.keyportparanormal.com/ghostboxschematics.html
2 Versions of a "Frank's Box"

http://www.keyportparanormal.com/simpleghostboxhack.html
A "hacked" version of a "Frank's Box"

_______________________________

As always, input is welcome.

Thanks for stopping by!!

Original MS post 08.12.08