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.

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.

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?

Holdontoyourhat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 .

sissi said:

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 .

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

trixie said:

she said she "slammed" the phone back in the cradle.

Click to expand...

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

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.

sissi said:

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 .

Click to expand...

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.

aussiesheila said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

trixie said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BlueCrab said:

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

Click to expand...

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.
http://uk.geocities.com/da2badeggs/midi/the_stripper.mid

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:laugh:

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.:clap: :clap: Keep up the good work!

Jayelles said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the 'aerospace analysis' isn't going to court either. Nobody is going to testify BR's voice is mysteriously embedded in any wave pattern on the tape. That's because it isn't.

Holdontoyourhat said:

I'm sure the 'aerospace analysis' isn't going to court either. Nobody is going to testify BR's voice is mysteriously embedded in any wave pattern on the tape. That's because it isn't.

Click to expand...

Aerospace made a statement to say that they stood by their work. Their work is on the police file along with a ton of other stuff none of us has seen.

It is ridiculous for anyone to say "that's because it isn't" unless that person has personally heard the enhanced 911 tape. Stating opinion as fact only serves to make one suspicious of a person. I would personally never trust a person who stated their opinions as anything other than their opinions.

Jayelles said:

Aerospace made a statement to say that they stood by their work. Their work is on the police file along with a ton of other stuff none of us has seen.

It is ridiculous for anyone to say "that's because it isn't" unless that person has personally heard the enhanced 911 tape. Stating opinion as fact only serves to make one suspicious of a person. I would personally never trust a person who stated their opinions as anything other than their opinions.

Click to expand...

So you'd agree BlueCrab should also have been taken to task for claiming " Burke's voice is on the final four seconds of that 911 tape."

tipper said:

So you'd agree BlueCrab should also have been taken to task for claiming " Burke's voice is on the final four seconds of that 911 tape."

Click to expand...

Technically, yes. However, we can get pedantic here and remind ourselves that you cannot prove the absence of something - only the presence.

There are several witnesses who have heard two of the enhancements and who say there were three voices at the end of the tape. Aerospace stand by their work and I have not read that any of these witnesses has withdrawn their statements or contradicted what was written in Steve Thomas' book.

Bluecrab's claims are based upon historical fact - i.e. that several people heard the tape and agreed that there was a third voice which sounded like a young child.

None of this is my opinion - all is a matter of factual record. Obviously, Burke and others are making the assumption that the child's voice is Burke and not some other child who was in the ramsey home that morning. I do not think that is unreasonable assumption - but it is an assumption. Any other assumption would require a lot more explanation.

The facts do not counter the possibility that Burke may have been the voice on the tape. We know now that he was awake and not asleep as was previously claimed by the family. It's not a huge leap to suppose that Burke was not afraid of his own parents and that when he heard them shouting, he went downstairs and asked them what was wrong. The latter IS my opinion.

Sorry - I was interrupted by someone at the door.

I'd like to add this:-

It's a whole different ballgame when you actually have witnesses to something. There's a lot that we can only speculate about in the ramsey case but there are witnesses to the enahnced 911 tape. Whose word has more weight? - that of the wiitness, or that of someone who has never heard the enhanced tape?

IMO - it would be a lot less suspicious if Burke had been up and about that morning. I think it's much more damning that he lay in bed and pretended to sleep. Was he afraid of his own parents? Or did someone tell him to go back to bed and pretend to sleep? A secure, well-adjusted child would be inquisitive about the shouting.