Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

So you're abandoning the claim that the 2 so-called experts could rule out the scream as belonging to Zimmerman?

It's not my claim. It's the claim of two verified audio forensics experts. That you disagree with the experts is utterly meaningless.

 

[WildCat]

It's not my claim. It's the claim of two verified audio forensics experts. That you disagree with the experts is utterly meaningless.

Have they ever demonstrated that they can do what they claim to be able to do, match a speaking voice to a scream?

 

[IdiotWhacker]

I was wondering what was the Tom Owens for his forensic service? He used the easy voice biometrics to basically determine that the scream on the 911 call wasn't Zimmerman. Woo or not? If this has already been addressed can you give me the post that concluded this.

 

[RandFan]

What I want to know is how could WTC7 collapse because of a few fires?

What those so-called "experts" tell us about it just doesn't wash with me.

Yep. Who the hell are these experts?

 

[WildCat]

I was wondering what was the Tom Owens for his forensic service? He used the easy voice biometrics to basically determine that the scream on the 911 call wasn't Zimmerman. Woo or not? If this has already been addressed can you give me the post that concluded this.

We're still waiting for someone to show that it's possible to match (or rule out) a scream with a spoken voice.

So far all we've got is "these guys are experts and they say they can do it and we don't need any evidence at all for their claims".

It's rather unconvincing.

 

[totoro]

I was under the impression the expert conclusion was it is not GZ yelling for help on the tape. Where is the level of doubt? Some forum expert wannabe's opinions they aren't satisfied?

None of the naysayers in this discussion are arguing in their fields of expertise, they are arguing about something they have a passing knowledge of.

Actually, it's worse than that. They are arguing about a field in which they know nothing at all.

I'm an expert in a closely related field, and read a few papers last night. I would call that a cursory or passing knowledge. Based on that passing knowledge, I wouldn't presume to know one way or another over someone who actually works in the field.

The stuff that's going on here is based on complete ignorance. Different thing entirely.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, has anyone taken a close look at Thomas Owen's educational background? Want to know what his B.A. is in? History! Other than that, he's taken some courses from SunAudCon which is one of those organizations that offers courses that last a few days and then you get a certificate. Then in 1985 he took some type of a "voice identification course". i.e. he probably sat through a course for a few days and took a test. Then from there he turned himself into an "expert". BAHAHAHAH.
....

I posted extensively about the certification organization and process involved in this field, Owen's peer reviewed publications and his peer recognition as an expert in the field.

Know what degree Bill Gates holds? Would you challenge his knowledge of business and computer programming?

Your criticisms are fabricated. Try looking at the certification organization and addressing the organization specifically instead of making up misleading ad homs.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Exactly. These 2 clowns are the Richard Gage and Steven Jones of audio forensics.

Do you have any evidence for these accusations at all? So far it seems like those guys are both professionals with relevant credentials and you're a random guy making arguably-libellous accusations on the internet and demanding everyone else do your homework for you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thank you.
Looks great to me.

Thank you. I am getting so tired of rebutting over and over this expert's critics.

 

[totoro]

Can you quote the parts of the Finnish paper that supports the premise that a scream can be matched with a speaking voice?

Given your deep understanding of signal processing and machine learning, can you tell me why the same voice screaming or speaking would be radically different to the classifier being used?

Oh, no, you can't because you don't know anything at all about the subject, and are just making **** up.

Ok, I had to get that out of my system. From now on, I really will ignore all of your posts on this subject.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The plot thickens.

This second "expert" has been trying to get attention over this for days. His first attempt was on his blog and on a video he posted on youtube which for some reason still only has 400 views. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpH8...DvjVQa1PpcFNHITODxjshBsbxWEWHtGD9CcbQfIApAiU=

He tells the viewer "what can you see that happened outside this woman's house in your minds eye". Are you freaking kidding me?! Is that how this joker does his work? Hilariously he refuses to offer an opinion on youtube claiming that

As a professional, you cannot have a biased opinion in the audio forensic industry.

Of course I guess that changed fast when he had an opportunity to be on TV, as he's now publishing press releases on his website blog and Facebook about all of his press appearances. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Primeau-Forensics/165778156866047

Also, you too can become a "voice identification expert". Just go to his website here and he tells you how:

This distance learning program includes all training you will need in order to become a professional voice identification examiner including:
4 one-on-one training sessions and the distance learning kit include three exams and two actual voice identification cases you need to complete in order to earn the certification. ...At the end you will receive a certificate naming you as a Certified Voice Identification Examiner.

It's always seemed to me that one of the signs of being a true skeptic is being willing to change ones mind. I'll be very curious to see if the people claiming we're "akin to climate deniers" will change their minds at all, now that they see that:
1. Neither "expert" has a scientific or technical degree of any type.
2. Being an "expert" requires taking a long distance course and taking an exam.

Yep, this sound like serious science to me .

 

[WildCat]

Do you have any evidence for these accusations at all?

Why yes I can! They claim to be able to match a scream with a spoken voice.

They have provided no evidence at all for this claim. And none of the known published studies on the subject have attempted to do this.

They're the ones claiming to ba able to do this, they must provide the evidence that they can. I won't be holding my breath for them or their apologists to do so.

 

[Mumbles]

The hilited part. AGAIN. This is getting silly.

What is the neighborhood watch program and where can I find the rules for the Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood watch program?

If one is a member of the neighborhood watch, are you like a police officer, on duty 24x7, or is it possible to act in the capacity of a normal citizen and not a member of the neighborhood watch at any time ?

Are we seriously supposed to believe that any neighborhood watch program recommends chasing after people with a gun because they're walking down the street? Or that any reasonable person would think that doing this is a good idea?

 

[johnny karate]

The hilited part. AGAIN. This is getting silly.

What is the neighborhood watch program and where can I find the rules for the Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood watch program?

I don't know that Twin Lakes had a set of rules. Sounds like they didn't. Sounds like Zimmerman just saddled up and played cowboy.

But as the director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association tells us:

... Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.


"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."


Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing sobecause hehas a concealed-weapons permit.


"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said.

This goes one of two ways. Either Zimmerman was aware of the rules associated with his role as neighborhood watch captain and simply disregarded them or he just decided he was a neighborhood watch captain without bothering to receive the proper training.

Either way, he was being reckless and irresponsible.

If one is a member of the neighborhood watch, are you like a police officer, on duty 24x7, or is it possible to act in the capacity of a normal citizen and not a member of the neighborhood watch at any time ?

First of all, he wasn't just a member. He was the captain. He was in charge of the program. That carries with a greater responsibility than just being a member.

Secondly, his homeowner association's newsletter certainly seemed to think he was on call 24-7:

The homeowners association's February newsletter said that Sanford police had beefed up patrols in the neighborhood and that officers on bicycles were making random checks of front yards and backyards. It was not clear how big the neighborhood watch was, but Zimmerman was the dominant force.

"If you've been the victim of a crime within the community, after calling the police, please contact our captain, George Zimmerman ... so we can be aware and help address the issue with other residents," the newsletter said.

I didn't see where it indicated "Please only call on Tuesdays between 2 and 4 PM as this is the only time when George is actually the captain".

 

[Dan O.]

Can you quote the parts where Zimmerman says he's associated with a neighborhood watch program?

Perhaps you would like to refresh us with the known date that George attended a neighborhood watch meeting and the name of the SPD officer that was speaking.

 

[triforcharity]

I didn't call them scientific frauds. I asked, repeatedly, if anyone can show evidence via scientific double blind tests that this type of identification is valid. And that until someone can, I will remain highly skeptical that this is in fact, woo. And as with much woo, these men may genuinely believe they can do what they claim they can do, even if they can't. I want some evidence to prove it.


Until then, I'll say I am skeptical, but willing to change my mind with evidence. And that evidence would consist of double blind tests.

So, it's good enough for courts of law, but not good enough for you?

Come on now......seriously?

 

[WildCat]

Given your deep understanding of signal processing and machine learning, can you tell me why the same voice screaming or speaking would be radically different to the classifier being used?

Oh, no, you can't because you don't know anything at all about the subject, and are just making **** up.

Ok, I had to get that out of my system. From now on, I really will ignore all of your posts on this subject.

Fact: all of the published papers in this field have made it clear that they need to compare one spoken phrase to another spoken phrase to make the comparison. Preferably the same exact phrase. No published study says they can match a scream to a spoken phrase.

I don't need to be an audio engineering expert to understand they are making an extraordinary claim unsupported by any evidence at all.

Maybe you have some evidence that this can be done? If you post it you'll be the first person in this thread to do so!

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Thank you. I am getting so tired of rebutting over and over this expert's critics.

Well since you're so tired let's do it one more time.

1. Do you think that, generally speaking, an "expert" should have a degree remotely related to that which that are purportedly an expert on?

2. Have you noticed how almost all of the climate deniers that claim to be scientists actually have degrees in other fields? And that this is repeatedly pointed out by those who explain why they are not experts in the field? I find it interesting how the standards we use for just about every other area of science suddenly don't apply here.

3. What serious fields of scientific research consist of a "long distance" course after which a person can take an exam and get a certificate?

Now that I think about it, I'd like to be a climate scientist. Maybe I can take a 2-day course and get a certificate. That would be fun.

 

[WildCat]

The plot thickens.

This second "expert" has been trying to get attention over this for days. His first attempt was on his blog and on a video he posted on youtube which for some reason still only has 400 views. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpH8...DvjVQa1PpcFNHITODxjshBsbxWEWHtGD9CcbQfIApAiU=

He tells the viewer "what can you see that happened outside this woman's house in your minds eye". Are you freaking kidding me?! Is that how this joker does his work? Hilariously he refuses to offer an opinion on youtube claiming that

Of course I guess that changed fast when he had an opportunity to be on TV, as he's now publishing press releases on his website blog and Facebook about all of his press appearances. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Primeau-Forensics/165778156866047

Also, you too can become a "voice identification expert". Just go to his website here and he tells you how:


It's always seemed to me that one of the signs of being a true skeptic is being willing to change ones mind. I'll be very curious to see if the people claiming we're "akin to climate deniers" will change their minds at all, now that they see that:
1. Neither "expert" has a scientific or technical degree of any type.
2. Being an "expert" requires taking a long distance course and taking an exam.

Yep, this sound like serious science to me .

Serious science is serious!

Looks like the Trayvon Truthers^TM have found their Gage and Jones!

 

[johnny karate]

Evidence that he belonged to an "official" NW program?

I didn't make a claim that he did.

Evidence that his particular program (if any) provided training?

I didn't claim it did, nor is it relevant. Zimmerman either disregarded his training or just didn't bother to receive any. Two different shades of irresponsibility.