911 Test from CBS Special
#11
(09-07-2018, 09:48 AM)Susan Wrote: 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?

Hi Susan,

Not only am I of the opinion that there are no "extra voices" as you call them, the evidence is overwhelming that this is the case.  This overwhelming evidence shows how completely unreliable Kimberly Archuleta is.  It is well-known that eyewitnesses are very unreliable, therefore earwitnesses should also be expected to be very unreliable.

BPD refused to accept audio analyses until they heard what they wanted to hear, then provided the myth that they were told to an ignorant public, many of whom were prejudiced against the Ramseys because of their wealth and status.  Once the purported conversation was printed, people including Kimberly started to hear exactly that when they listened to the noise and literally cannot hear anything else.

Despite all the "fuss" you mentioned, very few people seem to be aware that this noise cannot possibly be conversation that was transmitted over a phone line, and cannot possibly be what BPD imagined.  The "fuss" has to do with stupidity, ignorance, and bias.  Many people regard this as proof of something that they believe happened, not only proof of the alleged conversation, but proof of murder by one or more of the Ramseys.  Burke was awake; therefore the Ramseys lied; therefore they committed murder.  These people are outraged.

Regards,
Dave
Reply
#12
Hi Susan,

While looking a bit into claims of redacted copies of the 911 call, the following occurred to me:

Anyone who expects to hear a loud and clear recording of Burke and John or anyone else talking could easily conclude that the alleged conversation was redacted and then start a rumor to that effect.

“I got a copy and I don't hear anything at the end but tiny bits of noise, so the conversation must have been redacted!”

Nope, that's it. It's all there.

The automatic gain control circuitry makes the recorded noise louder during pauses in conversation than it was during conversation, but it's still very faint compared to the loudness of Patsy's and Kimberly's previous conversation.

Regards,
Dave
Reply
#13
(09-07-2018, 12:35 PM)Dave Wrote:
(09-07-2018, 09:48 AM)Susan Wrote: 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?

Hi Susan,

Not only am I of the opinion that there are no "extra voices" as you call them, the evidence is overwhelming that this is the case.  This overwhelming evidence shows how completely unreliable Kimberly Archuleta is.  It is well-known that eyewitnesses are very unreliable, therefore earwitnesses should also be expected to be very unreliable.

BPD refused to accept audio analyses until they heard what they wanted to hear, then provided the myth that they were told to an ignorant public, many of whom were prejudiced against the Ramseys because of their wealth and status.  Once the purported conversation was printed, people including Kimberly started to hear exactly that when they listened to the noise and literally cannot hear anything else.

Despite all the "fuss" you mentioned, very few people seem to be aware that this noise cannot possibly be conversation that was transmitted over a phone line, and cannot possibly be what BPD imagined.  The "fuss" has to do with stupidity, ignorance, and bias.  Many people regard this as proof of something that they believe happened, not only proof of the alleged conversation, but proof of murder by one or more of the Ramseys.  Burke was awake; therefore the Ramseys lied; therefore they committed murder.  These people are outraged.

Regards,
Dave
I have to respect your opinion about there being no "extra voices". However, I am still not completely convinced. I know that I am not an expert in this kind of technology as you are so I am probably coming across as a pest and I am sorry about this. But AKAIK Archuletta was the one who alerted police to the "extra voices" in the first place. if this is true she cannot be rightfully accused of hearing the voices after police had enhanced the original recording. 

I do not trust Boulder Police for one minute and I believe they are lying about a lot of the evidence, including that of the "extra voices".
Reply
#14
(09-08-2018, 11:19 PM)Susan Wrote: I have to respect your opinion about there being no "extra voices". However, I am still not completely convinced. I know that I am not an expert in this kind of technology as you are so I am probably coming across as a pest and I am sorry about this. But AKAIK Archuletta was the one who alerted police to the "extra voices" in the first place. if this is true she cannot be rightfully accused of hearing the voices after police had enhanced the original recording. 

I do not trust Boulder Police for one minute and I believe they are lying about a lot of the evidence, including that of the "extra voices".

Hi Susan,

Unless someone can show that Kimberly said in 1996 or 1997 exactly what she said on the CBS special, then she can indeed "be rightfully accused of hearing the voices after police had enhanced the original recording."  Why?  Because lacking such evidence, this is by far the most likely explanation of her fantastic recent claims given twenty years after the fact and which are flatly contradicted by the evidence we do have.

I also don't think it's very credible at all that Kimberly was the one who initiated the investigation into the 911 call.  That is a very routine procedure, especially for homicide cases,  and has been for decades.

Regards,
Dave.
Reply
#15
(09-09-2018, 12:00 PM)Dave Wrote:
(09-08-2018, 11:19 PM)Susan Wrote: I have to respect your opinion about there being no "extra voices". However, I am still not completely convinced. I know that I am not an expert in this kind of technology as you are so I am probably coming across as a pest and I am sorry about this. But AKAIK Archuletta was the one who alerted police to the "extra voices" in the first place. if this is true she cannot be rightfully accused of hearing the voices after police had enhanced the original recording. 

I do not trust Boulder Police for one minute and I believe they are lying about a lot of the evidence, including that of the "extra voices".

Hi Susan,

Unless someone can show that Kimberly said in 1996 or 1997 exactly what she said on the CBS special, then she can indeed "be rightfully accused of hearing the voices after police had enhanced the original recording."  Why?  Because lacking such evidence, this is by far the most likely explanation of her fantastic recent claims given twenty years after the fact and which are flatly contradicted by the evidence we do have.

I also don't think it's very credible at all that Kimberly was the one who initiated the investigation into the 911 call.  That is a very routine procedure, especially for homicide cases,  and has been for decades.

Regards,
Dave.

Thanks Dave. It's like so much else with this case, there is so much we don't know. I just hope the new DA sheds a bit more light on  things
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)