I have been waiting several years for help on this, and it is very close now. I’ll get several testers to start using the tool and get their feedback before releasing it to the public. At last, we will have a fine-grained, map-based search tool for Hum locations.
A theoretical logic flow map for Worldwide Hum researchers and interested scientists (Author: Henrik)
(Updated again: there was a readability problem in the previous document. This version should be better).
I have the pleasure of presenting this work by Henrik, one of our forum contributors with serious scientific credentials. (Henrik, along with Bernie Hutchins, played a major role in developing the new version of our Hum Map Survey). It is a logic flow diagram that sorts out the logic and decision making regarding the source of the Worldwide Hum. It will prove valuable for scientists new to the phenomenon, those who are scientifically literate, and those who have already invested time and energy into this issue.
The Inside Edition crew shot six hours of video in three locations here on the Sunshine Coast, and that was compressed to about 90 seconds on the “mystery sounds” segment. I very much need to correct some things and educate readers on a few others.
First, I was misquoted about the source of the Hum. Please read this.
Second, the Deming Box was designed to block VLF radio waves (from 3 kHz to 30 kHz), not “low-frequency sound waves”. Having the woman climb into the box made for good tv, however.
Third, I distance myself completely from “sky trumpets”, “apocalypse sounds”, and related silliness, including ridiculous conspiracies and pseudoscience.
Please read through this blog if you are interested in educating yourself about the Worldwide Hum. The language used here is scientifically rigorous but accessible to many readers.
Al Jazeera was important, as was Coast to Coast AM in some ways, along with BBC (four times), the Conversation (650,000 readers), and numbers of others, but this will be the biggest fish so far. For the first time, the Worldwide Hum will be discussed on a major evening American show in a serious, scientific, and credible way. Their viewership is over four million people per evening, and all it will take is for a single person in that group who has the connections and gravitas to finally push our project into a university or government laboratory. When that happens, this scientific riddle will soon be solved.
There’s a lot riding on this one. Wish me luck.
I’ve accepted an invitation to record an interview with Jonathan McCrea from Newstalk Radio in Ireland. Recent research published in Geophysical Research Letters – as interesting as it is – has absolutely nothing to do with the more widely discussed phenomenon known as the Worldwide Hum. Alas, the researchers were lazy, or at least poetic, by using the word “hum” to describe some ultra-low frequency oscillations in the Earth. As a result, there has been an avalanche of reporting that the Earth’s “mystery” and “eerie” hum has finally been recorded.
It hasn’t, and nothing has been solved, at least as far as our project is concerned.
So I’ll go on air and, starting from the beginning, educate the listeners about what we experience and how the recently published research has nothing to do with what they think it does. Note carefully: the French research is serious and completely valid – it’s just that their poor choice of words has confused hundreds of thousands of people about what they actually did.
I’ll announce the broadcast date and time when it is made known to me.
Some lazy terminology used in a Geophysical Letters Article has quickly morphed into a full-blown conflation of some French seismological research with our research into the Worldwide Hum. News websites around the world are now reporting that French scientists have finally recorded and found the source of “eerie” and unexplained sounds. The following is a breathtakingly bad example: http://newburghgazette.com/2017/12/10/scientists-capture-mysterious-sounds-permanently-produced/
Some folks might want to reach immediately for a conspiratorial explanation and conclude that somebody or some group is intentionally acting to sabotage our project, but I’m sure the answer is much more prosaic: awful science reporting. Not fake news, but rather very bad science editing and lack of fact-checking.
This is certainly a setback and will take time to recover from, but it is also an opportunity to connect with more astute readers who find their way to this blog and other informed resources.
Feel free to let me about other outlets where this kind of thing appears, and also feel free to contact the science reporters in question and set the record straight.