911 Test from CBS Special
#1
On the CBS television show The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, hosted by Jim Clemente and Laura Richards, Clemente and Richards promised to "follow the evidence," but they definitely did not do that.

At the start of the show, they showed some footage of "enhancement" of the 911 recording. They instructed the audio technician to zero in on the purported conversation, then could be heard to say things like, "Can you bring that up?" and "Can you clean that up a bit more?"

In other words, Clemente and whoever was with him at the time were directing the audio technician as to what to do. They had obviously already been informed of what the purported conversation consisted of, so were not at all concerned about whether or not this was actually conversation. Their presumption was that it was indeed conversation. Even the suggestion that it perhaps was anything other than conversation was not raised at all. The audio technician acted like a robot, just doing what he was asked to do.

This method of examining the 911 recording is not the least bit scientific but was dressed up to look like it was.

Instead, that incident was a shameful display of Group Confirmation Bias exercised by the so-called "crack team" of investigators.

---------------

In contrast to the utterly non-scientific approach by Clemente et al., scientific questions always allow for the possibility that things are not as they seem. They pose questions that put presumptions at risk. For example:

"If a wall phone is not hung up properly in a kitchen and conversation took place, what would it sound like?"

"If conversation is sent over a phone line, what would be the expected characteristics of its recording?"

For both of these latter questions, presumptions of the 911 recordings made by Clemente and others are at risk of being disproven by the answers.

Indeed, disproof is exactly what I found when examining recordings of the Ramsey 911 call from the Boulder County DA's office, namely disproof of the presumption that the 911 recording contained additional conversation carried over a phone line. I was not interested in wasting my time trying to determine what was said if there was no conversation, so I started by asking the type of question described above.  Three important findings were:

1) Frequencies that cannot be carried by phone lines are present in the alleged conversation.

2) There is little or no reverb in the noise that is alleged to be conversation compared to the 100% reverb sound that should be expected to be picked up by a telephone receiver mouthpiece aimed at a wall in kitchen rather than aimed towards the people who were speaking.  In addition, the off-hook phone speculation has the telephone receiver microphone at a significant distance from the source of the sound, not close-mic'd.  Any conversation should have been swamped with reverb, but it was not.

3) The automatic gain control (AGC) often brought background noise up to an audible level.  Sounds very similar to the alleged conversation are present throughout the recording, especially during moments of silence in the actual conversation.


Given that a number of members of the so-called “crack team” of investigators had some scientific background (or at least took some science courses) and claim to be experts in technical areas, and given the grave but baseless accusations that were made, this particular exercise in Group Confirmation Bias is serious professional misconduct.

To make matters worse: To produce the show, a replicate of portions of the Ramsey home was constructed, but it apparently never occurred to these geniuses that they could actually test the acoustics of a recording of the alleged conversations in a nearly identical setting as that of the Ramsey kitchen.  In addition to having a child hit a dummy head with a Maglite flashlight, they could have also had this same child speaking towards a phone that was off-hook and could have recorded this over a real phone line with vintage 911 recording equipment.  Based upon my own testing of phones off-hook, it would have become immediately apparent that there is no way that the alleged conversation was actually conversation  over a phone line because the transmitted sounds would have been swamped with reverb and would have been dramatically low-pass filtered.

This case is unbelievably, and very sadly, full of gross incompetence and misconduct; this is but one example.
Reply
#2
You hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!! Love your post!

This was one of the worst "documentaries" Ive ever seen.

I was re watching this yesterday to find the clip of their messed up verison of JonBenet's bed.

While I was skimming through the clips, I re watched the part where they pretended to come through the basement windows, Trying to disprove Lou Smit's theory.

As Laura was leaving the basement(through the window ) She PURPOSELY rubbed her shoe by their makeshift web. Same with her coming into the window!!! Yet they want to say there is NO way a intruder came in from that window?? Give me a break. I couldnt finish watching it. What a crock
Reply
#3
The tape and some enhancements can be found at http://www.jameson245.com/911_page.htm
Reply
#4
(03-25-2017, 11:56 AM)Dave Wrote: Three important findings were:

1) Frequencies that cannot be carried by phone lines are present in the alleged conversation.

2) There is little or no reverb in the noise that is alleged to be conversation compared to the 100% reverb sound that should be expected to be picked up by a telephone receiver mouthpiece aimed at a wall in kitchen rather than aimed towards the people who were speaking.  In addition, the off-hook phone speculation has the telephone receiver microphone at a significant distance from the source of the sound, not close-mic'd.  Any conversation should have been swamped with reverb, but it was not.

3) The automatic gain control (AGC) often brought background noise up to an audible level.  Sounds very similar to the alleged conversation are present throughout the recording, especially during moments of silence in the actual conversation.

Hi Dave - you say "Frequencies that cannot be carried by phone lines are present in the alleged conversation".

So please do you have an explanation as to why such frequencies were present? 

Also, you were one of the people who did tests on the recording weren't you? From whom did you get your copy?
Reply
#5
(08-26-2018, 08:38 AM)Susan Wrote: Hi Dave - you say "Frequencies that cannot be carried by phone lines are present in the alleged conversation".

So please do you have an explanation as to why such frequencies were present? 

Also, you were one of the people who did tests on the recording weren't you? From whom did you get your copy?

Hi Susan,

To clarify: The alleged conversation, when frequencies below 3500 Hz are filtered out, still had remnants that sounded like the alleged conversation.  Telephone lines have very strong filters that get rid of everything below (oops!  I meant above) 3500 Hz or so, so all frequencies of conversation above 3500 Hz are eliminated by being transmitted over phone lines. 

In contrast, local noises such as equipment noise that are recorded locally do not travel through the phone lines and are recorded onto tape (digitally nowadays), complete with all frequencies that are not cut out by the local equipment.  Typically, equipment noises are drowned out by conversation, but when there is no actual conversation, the equipment used by the Boulder area 911 emergency response teams turned the volume way up automatically and made equipment noise and other local environment noise much more audible from time to time on the 911 recordings. 

As far as the source of the noise goes: All electronic equipment produces and/or amplifies noise, and this noise has many causes:  Electronic circuit components such as resistors and capacitors themselves cause noise; noise can be picked up through electromagnetic interactions with other equipment such as transformers for flourescent lighting, external computers in the same room, and so on.  Mechanical noise can be picked up by circuit components that act like microphones and so are said to be "microphonic."  Noise can also come in through common electrical connections between electronic equipment such as through the power lines.  There are too many possible sources to name here.  The frequencies of these noises can be from very low to very high.

I evaluated tape cassette and CD copies of the 911 recordings obtained directly from the Boulder County DA's office.

Regards,
Dave
Reply
#6
(09-03-2018, 11:40 AM)Dave Wrote:
(08-26-2018, 08:38 AM)Susan Wrote: Hi Dave - you say "Frequencies that cannot be carried by phone lines are present in the alleged conversation".

So please do you have an explanation as to why such frequencies were present? 

Also, you were one of the people who did tests on the recording weren't you? From whom did you get your copy?

Hi Susan,

To clarify: The alleged conversation, when frequencies below 3500 Hz are filtered out, still had remnants that sounded like the alleged conversation.  Telephone lines have very strong filters that get rid of everything below 3500 Hz or so, so all frequencies of conversation above 3500 Hz are eliminated by being transmitted over phone lines. 

In contrast, local noises such as equipment noise that are recorded locally do not travel through the phone lines and are recorded onto tape (digitally nowadays), complete with all frequencies that are not cut out by the local equipment.  Typically, equipment noises are drowned out by conversation, but when there is no actual conversation, the equipment used by the Boulder area 911 emergency response teams turned the volume way up automatically and made equipment noise and other local environment noise much more audible from time to time on the 911 recordings. 

As far as the source of the noise goes: All electronic equipment produces and/or amplifies noise, and this noise has many causes:  Electronic circuit components such as resistors and capacitors themselves cause noise; noise can be picked up through electromagnetic interactions with other equipment such as transformers for flourescent lighting, external computers in the same room, and so on.  Mechanical noise can be picked up by circuit components that act like microphones and so are said to be "microphonic."  Noise can also come in through common electrical connections between electronic equipment such as through the power lines.  There are too many possible sources to name here.  The frequencies of these noises can be from very low to very high.

I evaluated tape cassette and CD copies of the 911 recordings obtained directly from the Boulder County DA's office.

Regards,
Dave

Thanks for the reply Dave. 

Taking one thing at a time - I don't even understand the first bit: "The alleged conversation, when frequencies below 3500 Hz are filtered out, still had remnants that sounded like the alleged conversation.  Telephone lines have very strong filters that get rid of everything below 3500 Hz or so, so all frequencies of conversation above 3500 Hz are eliminated by being transmitted over phone lines."

I am very non-technical so dumb the explanation down as much as you can please Dave

I think you are saying that both the tape cassette and CD copies of the 911 recordings that you obtained directly from the Boulder County DA's office "still had remnants that sounded like the alleged conversation."

Is this correct?
Reply
#7
Hi Susan,

A person with a low  voice makes clicks with their mouths that are of higher pitch.  If you took the recorded speech of a person with a low voice and filtered out all of the low frequencies, you would still hear clicks that have the timing of the person's speech, even if you may no longer understand exactly what the person said because much of the sound of the vowels would be gone.  Likewise, if you took the recorded speech of a person with a high voice and filtered out all of the high frequencies, you would still hear some low humming sounds that have the timing of the person's speech, even if you could no longer hear the articulation of their speech very well, the articulation being made up of clicks and pops like the sound of B and P or the hiss of S and Z.

When I filtered the low frequencies out of the copies of the 911 recordings, I still could easily hear the higher frequency pops and clicks that had the same timing as the alleged conversation did before it was filtered.  If the noises that were alleged to be conversation actually were conversation over a phone line, then after filtering I should have heard nothing at all that resembled the alleged conversation. 

By the way, to verify this testing, I recorded my own voice over an actual phone line and did the same type of filtering and did indeed hear nothing that resembled the conversation after filtering it, just as expected.

-------------

I'm not sure what you meant by "I think you are saying that both the tape cassette and CD copies of the 911 recordings that you obtained directly from the Boulder County DA's office 'still had remnants that sounded like the alleged conversation.'"

I performed all my testing starting with the tape cassette and CD copies of the 911 recordings obtained directly from the Boulder County DA's office.  I am not saying that the tape cassette and CD copies of the 911 recordings themselves "still had remnants that sounded like the alleged conversation."  I didn't change the tape cassette or CD copies of the 911 recordings themselves.  They are the same as they were when I received them.  I created digital copies on my hard disk drive of the tape cassette and CD copies of the 911 recordings, then processed those digital copies.  I did not modify the originals.  I mention this in case there is any misunderstanding of what happened to the original copies I received. 

Regards,
Dave
Reply
#8
(03-25-2017, 11:56 AM)Dave Wrote: On the CBS television show The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, hosted by Jim Clemente and Laura Richards, Clemente and Richards promised to "follow the evidence," but they definitely did not do that.

At the start of the show, they showed some footage of "enhancement" of the 911 recording. They instructed the audio technician to zero in on the purported conversation, then could be heard to say things like, "Can you bring that up?" and "Can you clean that up a bit more?"

In other words, Clemente and whoever was with him at the time were directing the audio technician as to what to do. They had obviously already been informed of what the purported conversation consisted of, so were not at all concerned about whether or not this was actually conversation. Their presumption was that it was indeed conversation. Even the suggestion that it perhaps was anything other than conversation was not raised at all. The audio technician acted like a robot, just doing what he was asked to do.

This method of examining the 911 recording is not the least bit scientific but was dressed up to look like it was.

Instead, that incident was a shameful display of Group Confirmation Bias exercised by the so-called "crack team" of investigators.

---------------

In contrast to the utterly non-scientific approach by Clemente et al., scientific questions always allow for the possibility that things are not as they seem. They pose questions that put presumptions at risk. For example:

"If a wall phone is not hung up properly in a kitchen and conversation took place, what would it sound like?"

"If conversation is sent over a phone line, what would be the expected characteristics of its recording?"

For both of these latter questions, presumptions of the 911 recordings made by Clemente and others are at risk of being disproven by the answers.

Indeed, disproof is exactly what I found when examining recordings of the Ramsey 911 call from the Boulder County DA's office, namely disproof of the presumption that the 911 recording contained additional conversation carried over a phone line. I was not interested in wasting my time trying to determine what was said if there was no conversation, so I started by asking the type of question described above.  Three important findings were:

1) Frequencies that cannot be carried by phone lines are present in the alleged conversation.

2) There is little or no reverb in the noise that is alleged to be conversation compared to the 100% reverb sound that should be expected to be picked up by a telephone receiver mouthpiece aimed at a wall in kitchen rather than aimed towards the people who were speaking.  In addition, the off-hook phone speculation has the telephone receiver microphone at a significant distance from the source of the sound, not close-mic'd.  Any conversation should have been swamped with reverb, but it was not.

3) The automatic gain control (AGC) often brought background noise up to an audible level.  Sounds very similar to the alleged conversation are present throughout the recording, especially during moments of silence in the actual conversation.


Given that a number of members of the so-called “crack team” of investigators had some scientific background (or at least took some science courses) and claim to be experts in technical areas, and given the grave but baseless accusations that were made, this particular exercise in Group Confirmation Bias is serious professional misconduct.

To make matters worse: To produce the show, a replicate of portions of the Ramsey home was constructed, but it apparently never occurred to these geniuses that they could actually test the acoustics of a recording of the alleged conversations in a nearly identical setting as that of the Ramsey kitchen.  In addition to having a child hit a dummy head with a Maglite flashlight, they could have also had this same child speaking towards a phone that was off-hook and could have recorded this over a real phone line with vintage 911 recording equipment.  Based upon my own testing of phones off-hook, it would have become immediately apparent that there is no way that the alleged conversation was actually conversation  over a phone line because the transmitted sounds would have been swamped with reverb and would have been dramatically low-pass filtered.

This case is unbelievably, and very sadly, full of gross incompetence and misconduct; this is but one example.

Hi Dave, more questions from me. You say "1) Frequencies that cannot be carried by phone lines are present in the alleged conversation." 

Can you please spell out what you concluded from this? It might be obvious to you what the conclusion is but it isn't to me. What do you think is the explanation for the frequencies that cannot be carried by phone lines being present in the alleged conversation?

PS - Please don't think that I am in any way questioning the quality of your work. On the contrary I think the work you have done is fantastic it's just that I have difficulty understanding it

(09-04-2018, 11:41 AM)Dave Wrote: Hi Susan,

A person with a low  voice makes clicks with their mouths that are of higher pitch.  If you took the recorded speech of a person with a low voice and filtered out all of the low frequencies, you would still hear clicks that have the timing of the person's speech, even if you may no longer understand exactly what the person said because much of the sound of the vowels would be gone.  Likewise, if you took the recorded speech of a person with a high voice and filtered out all of the high frequencies, you would still hear some low humming sounds that have the timing of the person's speech, even if you could no longer hear the articulation of their speech very well, the articulation being made up of clicks and pops like the sound of B and P or the hiss of S and Z.

When I filtered the low frequencies out of the copies of the 911 recordings, I still could easily hear the higher frequency pops and clicks that had the same timing as the alleged conversation did before it was filtered.  If the noises that were alleged to be conversation actually were conversation over a phone line, then after filtering I should have heard nothing at all that resembled the alleged conversation. 

By the way, to verify this testing, I recorded my own voice over an actual phone line and did the same type of filtering and did indeed hear nothing that resembled the conversation after filtering it, just as expected.

-------------

I'm not sure what you meant by "I think you are saying that both the tape cassette and CD copies of the 911 recordings that you obtained directly from the Boulder County DA's office 'still had remnants that sounded like the alleged conversation.'"

I performed all my testing starting with the tape cassette and CD copies of the 911 recordings obtained directly from the Boulder County DA's office.  I am not saying that the tape cassette and CD copies of the 911 recordings themselves "still had remnants that sounded like the alleged conversation."  I didn't change the tape cassette or CD copies of the 911 recordings themselves.  They are the same as they were when I received them.  I created digital copies on my hard disk drive of the tape cassette and CD copies of the 911 recordings, then processed those digital copies.  I did not modify the originals.  I mention this in case there is any misunderstanding of what happened to the original copies I received. 

Regards,
Dave
Thanks Dave for your reply. No I wasn't thinking that you might have changed anything after you received it. I was thinking more of whether someone might have changed something before they distributed the copies

I am wondering whether everyone who got a copy of the original recording got exactly the same recording on their cassette or CD as what was on the original 911 recorder?. Wasn't there talk from some people that the copies they received appeared to have parts redacted? You got your copy from the DA's office. But how do we know police didn't give Lacy a doctored copy of the original? And what copy did Jim Jenkins get? Was his the same as Lacy's? What about the copy that was played on Geraldo? Were they all exactly the same or were they each a bit different?
Reply
#9
Hi Susan,

If the original 911 recording was analog such as tape recorder, etc. rather than directly digital such as straight to a computer file, then all later copies of the analog recording are going to be slightly different than the first analog copy.  If the original recording was digitized and sent straight to a computer file or something similar, then all copies of the original that are also digital could be, but are not necessarily, identical.

The two copies I received were not identical.  In addition to the fact that one was analog and the other digital, the tape cassette appeared to be closer to the original while the CD copy appeared to be modified.  I suspect that the CD copy was some sort of so-called “enhanced” copy such as the copy allegedly created at Aerospace Corp.  

I did not hear anything that I would regard as “doctoring” (edits that were attempts to change conclusions) even though I did listen for clicks and pops and changes of background noise that would suggest editing had been done.  In the end, I came to identical conclusions for both copies that I was given: It did not happen that John and Burke had a conversation that bounced around off of the kitchen walls and was then sent over a phone line to be recorded by the 911 dispatch center.

Unless it can be shown that making copies somehow materially affected the resulting tests which, in turn, caused incorrect conclusions to be drawn, there is little point in worrying about differences between copies  as long as the alleged conversation is still there.  No reverb equals no phone off hook in the kitchen.  Reverb is almost impossible to remove after being recorded when it's from source and receiver at specific locations in a specific room.

Regards,
Dave
Reply
#10
(09-06-2018, 09:03 PM)Dave Wrote: Hi Susan,

If the original 911 recording was analog such as tape recorder, etc. rather than directly digital such as straight to a computer file, then all later copies of the analog recording are going to be slightly different than the first analog copy.  If the original recording was digitized and sent straight to a computer file or something similar, then all copies of the original that are also digital could be, but are not necessarily, identical.

The two copies I received were not identical.  In addition to the fact that one was analog and the other digital, the tape cassette appeared to be closer to the original while the CD copy appeared to be modified.  I suspect that the CD copy was some sort of so-called “enhanced” copy such as the copy allegedly created at Aerospace Corp.  

I did not hear anything that I would regard as “doctoring” (edits that were attempts to change conclusions) even though I did listen for clicks and pops and changes of background noise that would suggest editing had been done.  In the end, I came to identical conclusions for both copies that I was given: It did not happen that John and Burke had a conversation that bounced around off of the kitchen walls and was then sent over a phone line to be recorded by the 911 dispatch center.

Unless it can be shown that making copies somehow materially affected the resulting tests which, in turn, caused incorrect conclusions to be drawn, there is little point in worrying about differences between copies  as long as the alleged conversation is still there.  No reverb equals no phone off hook in the kitchen.  Reverb is almost impossible to remove after being recorded when it's from source and receiver at specific locations in a specific room.

Regards,
Dave


thanks so much Dave. So in saying "In the end, I came to identical conclusions for both copies that I was given: It did not happen that John and Burke had a conversation that bounced around off of the kitchen walls and was then sent over a phone line to be recorded by the 911 dispatch center." you are of the opinion that there were no 'extra voices' to be heard of the Aerospace enhanced recording, right? 

So what do you make of all the fuss then? Do you think that people can hear voices because they want to hear them? What do you think about Kimberly Archuletta's statements?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)