970 users online (188 members and 782 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    FAO Holdontoyourhat

    I've been trying to attract your attention on other threads, but you seem to be missing my posts....

    I'd like to ask you how familiar you are with Dave's analysis of the 911 tape. I'd be really interested in your comments.

    Hopefully you won't miss this post.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    OK, well I'm not a big 'enhanced 911 tape' expert. It seems 'Dave's analysis' is opposite the 'aerospace analysis.' That just means experts can't agree. Just like experts can't agree on so many other aspects.

    When experts can't agree on the tape, its harder to make the tape part of an argument for the R's lying about BR.

    Since there is nothing on the 911 tape, or even the enhanced 911 tape, that clearly indicated BR was there, I'd go with the R's statements relating to BR. Unless there was some other reason to discount it.

  3. #3
    IrishMist's Avatar
    IrishMist is offline You can't control the wind - but you can adjust your sails
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Southeastern Tennessee
    Posts
    7,469
    Ok, forgive me for butting in, but this was posted in public...

    It's been a really long time since I heard about "Dave's Analysis" but if I remember correctly, he wasn't even close to being an expert, was he?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat
    OK, well I'm not a big 'enhanced 911 tape' expert. It seems 'Dave's analysis' is opposite the 'aerospace analysis.' That just means experts can't agree. Just like experts can't agree on so many other aspects.

    When experts can't agree on the tape, its harder to make the tape part of an argument for the R's lying about BR.

    Since there is nothing on the 911 tape, or even the enhanced 911 tape, that clearly indicated BR was there, I'd go with the R's statements relating to BR. Unless there was some other reason to discount it.
    You seem to be suggesting that Dave is an expert - when in fact we only have Dave's word for that. In reality, we don't know anything about Dave. He *seems* to be an expert on a lot of things when in fact we know that defies the very definition of the word expert (Jack of all trades is usually master of none).

    Don't you find it compelling that having "analysed" the tape using a mystery program he wrote himself, Dave then refused to discuss his analysis with anyone who hadn't performed the same analysis?

    I was in contact with a REAL forensic audio analyst a couple of years ago - a man who is highly respected and well known in his field. He explained to me the process of spectrography and how a computer can detect sounds which are inaudible to the human ear. Very powerful equipment is used for this - equipment which an organisation like Aerospace might have but which in fact the FBI and Secret Service do NOT own! (their equipment is notoriously NOT state of the art).

    My expert laughed at the notion of a trained ear being sufficient for forensic audion analysis.

    A few weeks ago, I started this thread:-

    http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33913

    I used my graphics software (Paint Shop Pro) to write a message on a blank canvas. The message was written in white and on a white background - however, they were different shades of white. At a setting of 24 bit colour depth, a computer can distinguish between over 16 million colours - a human eye cannot distinguish between 16 million colours - not even close.

    Same with audio. With a sampling resolution of 24 bits, a computer can store over 16 millions different sounds and distinguish between them. Not even a specially trained human ear can distinguish between over 16 million sounds!

    I think it is very dangerous to make assumptions based upon the results of amateur tests performed on inadequate equipment using a ???? generational copy of a recording. Every time a copy is made, the sound quality deteriorates. If the original had to be enhanced by Aeropsace to make sense of it - we cannot possibly make judgements upon Dave's table-top analysis (figure of speech).

    The FACT is that none of us have heard Aerospace's enahncement of the original 911 tape. We do know that Aerospace made a statement to say that they "stand by their work". We also know that another company (el Paso?) who analysed the ORIGINAL tape claimed also to hear the voices - they just didn't agree with Aerospace on the words which were spoken.

    So back to my message on this thread:-

    http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33913

    Look at the image - you will see nothing but it is there. A computer can see it, a human cannot.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Can I "butt" in ,too?
    Many 911 tapes are recycled,they are used sent out, erased and recirculated, no one can expect the erasures to hold up to the scrutiny of a high tec lab. The tape isn't important either way. Only the audible words, the ones between Patsy and the 911 clerk are important. It wouldn't make sense to require hi tec enhancement to find something newly taped, jmo .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Can I "butt" in ,too?
    Many 911 tapes are recycled,they are used sent out, erased and recirculated, no one can expect the erasures to hold up to the scrutiny of a high tec lab. The tape isn't important either way. Only the audible words, the ones between Patsy and the 911 clerk are important. It wouldn't make sense to require hi tec enhancement to find something newly taped, jmo .
    You are quite wrong Sissi. Forensic Audio analysis of 911 tapes is used extensively in police work. The reason for this is that many people get to the phone and make a connection when there is a criminal emergency. Sometimes they are shot or stabbed by their assailant while they are online. Forensic audio analysis by qualified people using sophisticated equipment can have great results in tracking the perps. They can tell what direction a shot came from, the distance and even the calibre of the weapon.

    If forensic audio analysis revealed conversations between the Ramseys and the presence of Burke, it would prove they were lying about events that morning and they would have to explain why.

    I am undecided about the involvement of the Ramseys in JonBenet's murder but I think it does a great inservice to JonBenet if people choose to give anyone a "pass" who has means and opportunity. Especially when those persons have not been officially cleared on evidence.

    JonBenet should always come first.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,619
    Just the fact that Patsy mentions in DOI that she placed the phone back into the cradle makes me think there was more to the story. In reading the book, I noticed several situations where the Rs addressed "evidence" subtly.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,594

    yeah

    she said she "slammed" the phone back in the cradle. IMO she wants to make sure the reader has no reason to think the phone was off the hook or not properly hung up because of this controversy about the 911 tape. I just think when the Rams address evidence in their book like this, subtly, almost manipulitivly(sp?), it makes them look worse. It seems like they think everybody is so dumb. It's insulting, honestly. But I think the ransom note is dumb and shows a certain amount of gullability and that is how I see Patsy and that is what I read in DOI. Dumbness and gullibility.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie
    she said she "slammed" the phone back in the cradle.
    trixie,

    Well, we know that's a lie. If Patsy had slammed the phone back into the cradle we would have heard the noise from the slamming. Remember, there was at least a four-second delay at the end of the 911 call (the part that was enhanced by Aerospace Corporation and contained Burke's voice in the background), and you could still hear the 911 dispatcher typing and saying "Patsy, Patsy, Patsy!" after Patsy supposedly hung up the phone. There was no noise from a phone being slammed into the cradle.

    BlueCrab

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,594

    I know

    That's what makes it so insulting, like we don't have a brain in our heads or something and we're just going to be gullible and go along with whatever Patys says happened, without looking into it ourselves and forming our own opinion. DOI was nothing but a defense and an explanation of all the evidence they knew had been made public. It was an insult.


  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Can I "butt" in ,too?
    Many 911 tapes are recycled,they are used sent out, erased and recirculated, no one can expect the erasures to hold up to the scrutiny of a high tec lab. The tape isn't important either way. Only the audible words, the ones between Patsy and the 911 clerk are important. It wouldn't make sense to require hi tec enhancement to find something newly taped, jmo .
    This view makes sense to me.

    Surely if Patsy and John were still in the same room as the phone and Burke was there also, their voices would probably only need to be enhanced maybe 3X or 5X for their words to be audible to the human ear.

    What sort of enhancement did the Aerospace people need perform on the tape with their hi-tech, state-of-the-art equipment so they could hear words that were still of such limited audibility that there is some disagreement as to what the words are? 1,000X? 10,000X? 100,000X?

    It seems highly likely to me that they picked up erased dialogue on a recycled tape just as Sissi suggests.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by aussiesheila

    Surely if Patsy and John were still in the same room as the phone and Burke was there also, their voices would probably only need to be enhanced maybe 3X or 5X f as Sissi suggests.

    aussiesheila,

    Burke's voice is on the final four seconds of that 911 tape. The enhancement of those four seconds wasn't a matter of just increasing the volume; it was a matter of filtering out other noises in the room but leaving the faint voices still able to be heard. For instance, the noise from a furnace blower running, or a refrigerator running, would have to be filtered out or else they would overpower the faint voices in the background. Only professionals using state-of-the-art equipment would be able to satisfactorily accomplish this. Aerospace Corporation accomplished it.

    BlueCrab

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,619
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie
    That's what makes it so insulting, like we don't have a brain in our heads or something and we're just going to be gullible and go along with whatever Patys says happened, without looking into it ourselves and forming our own opinion. DOI was nothing but a defense and an explanation of all the evidence they knew had been made public. It was an insult.
    I agree with your comments. And, DOI came out before we (general public) knew that the 911 tape would cause such a hoopla. Apparently, their attys thought it was worthy of subtle addressing in the book. I, too, see DOI the same way as you--basically a public relations endeavor. If one reads between the lines, one can garner additional info that the attys wanted addressed, IMO.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    aussiesheila,

    Burke's voice is on the final four seconds of that 911 tape. The enhancement of those four seconds wasn't a matter of just increasing the volume; it was a matter of filtering out other noises in the room but leaving the faint voices still able to be heard. For instance, the noise from a furnace blower running, or a refrigerator running, would have to be filtered out or else they would overpower the faint voices in the background. Only professionals using state-of-the-art equipment would be able to satisfactorily accomplish this. Aerospace Corporation accomplished it.

    BlueCrab
    This is correct BC. "Enhancement" does not simply mean to increase volume and state of the art equipment is required.

    It is also common for the big labs to recommend that clients list to audio enhancements on the labs own equipment as results may be too subtle to hear on regular equipment.

    I remember when my husband got his sooper-dooper hi-fi equipment and he insisted I listen to one of my favourite pieces of music. It was amazing because I could hear musical instruments and sounds that I'd never picked up before on the old stereo.

    There has been so much dishonesty in this case that we have no reason to suppose that integrity has been maintained in the 911 tapes.

    Dave's analysis would never stand up in court. He offered no proof that his methodology works.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4
    I am totally aghast that discussion of the 9ll call continues. After all, Dave, self-appointed expert of everything, analyzed the tape for us long ago. LMAO

    Credit goes to Jayelles for Dave's title. I luv it!!

    Out with the truth now, Blue Crab. I believe you have some way, some how, actually heard the real enhancement which, of course, has not been released to the public. Keep up the good work!

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast