Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Moss]

Isn't NBS basically doing "trust me, I'm in audio engineering" without providing credentials himself?
What I'm actually curious about is what scientific discipline would be the appropriate one to do the testing. Physics? More specific biophysics for voice production?

 

[leftysergeant]

Really ?? Are you starting some sort of witch hunt against the neighbor now ?

I'm saying that the punk has nothing to say to civilized people.

 

[Information Analyst]

I'm assuming this is a Knox-type monster thread, and I have to post this kind of thing in here. Anyone see this from Frank Taaffe? He's the head of the neighborhood watch where Martin was killed:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/03/zimmerman-defender-rants-about-young-black-males/

I saw it live, and it was excruciating. Soledad did not let him go. She and another panelist kept pushing this guy once it was clear that, in Frank's opinion, the idea of Zimmerman doing a racial-profile on Treyvon was ok.

With friends like this....

 

[leftysergeant]

With friends like this....

That the dirtbag says that Martin would still be alive if he had been more courteous to the sociopath staking him he would still be alive suggests to me that he has some sort of cotrol issues. Security work atracts that kind of creep.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Isn't NBS basically doing "trust me, I'm in audio engineering" without providing credentials himself?
What I'm actually curious about is what scientific discipline would be the appropriate one to do the testing. Physics? More specific biophysics for voice production?

From a quick glance at a few CVs, the people publishing research in the area seem to be a mix of people with an audio engineering background and people with a linguistics background. I don't know if I looked at a biased sample, but from what I looked at the UK leans more heavily towards linguists and the US towards audio engineers.

 

[Flanger]

As far as I see, its the same partial report that has been available from the city of sanford site:
http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html

Ahh thanks. I had a feeling I saw it before. There's just so much information floating about, it's hard to keep everything strait.

 

[WildCat]

Isn't NBS basically doing "trust me, I'm in audio engineering" without providing credentials himself?
What I'm actually curious about is what scientific discipline would be the appropriate one to do the testing. Physics? More specific biophysics for voice production?

All you need is a double-blind test. They can either do what they claim, or they can't. You don't need to understand any of the technical details.

 

[crimresearch]

Maybe it's because the only two people, as far as we can tell, on the Neighborhood Watch are violent sociopaths who are just looking for a way to boost their highly suspect virility and have no bloody clue what they are doing. If this is the same Frank Taaffe, he is a sorry sack of crap to whom no person should turn for any kind of assistsance or advice.

But nothing about how he looks like a banger, hmmm? And the difference is?

 

[Caper]

I'm still waiting for you to link to some of this science whereby a scream for help can be compared against a spoken phrase that doesn't even include the word "help" to determine whether or not they were spoken by the same individual.

You claim this is science, prove it.

So far, not one person has linked to any science paper that shows this is possible. And yet, that's exactly what these 2 professional expert witnesses claim to be able to do.

It probably doesn't exist. I have no proof either way...... But I do know we have a media that has an agenda, that is to show us how racist we are. That means the facts in this case are distant second. The primary job of the media in this case is to report a story where the racist evil white man guns down another innocent black man. That's the story they want. That creates a demand for anything that can lend their story credibility. It's no different then 9/11 truthers creating enough demand for scientists to prove to them that their fantasies are true. Young earth creationists create a demand for scientists for their craziness... and even they will claim to have science backing them.

Now I don't know if there is much validity to their voice analysis. But I know there is a big demand for anyone to come forward who can call himself a scientist and prove the agenda the media wants to push (evil whitey). I'm not saying his analysis isn't solid, but it's hard for me to judge if it is or if he's just the one filling the demand.

 

[leftysergeant]

But nothing about how he looks like a banger, hmmm? And the difference is?

He is a domestic violence perp. No place on Neighborhood watch for that sort of dirtbag.

 

[Bill Thompson]

But he did, didn't he? This wasn't a shooting from a distance, was it?

Did Zimmerman not think Martin was trying to get away?

That is not what I heard.

Where do you get your information?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Dear Lord. It is painful to watch this debate over so-called scientific standards -- in fact, the whole "CSI: Internet" has been hard to sit through.

Here's the latest from NIST on biometrics standards (investigatory report from the relevant committee). The last revision is only a months old, so it should be pretty current:

http://biometrics.nist.gov/cs_links/ibpc2012/presentations/Day4/IVBCReport_v1.8.pdf

Pages 50-52 discuss some of the relevant issues.

Here is a 2011 report from "The National Biomatrics Challenge" from the NSTC.

http://www.biometriccoe.gov/_doc/BiometricsChallenge2011_protected.pdf

Page 14 talks about voice.

Enjoy.

 

[crimresearch]

Dear Lord. It is painful to watch this debate over so-called scientific standards -- in fact, the whole "CSI: Internet" has been hard to sit through.

Here's the latest from NIST on biometrics standards (investigatory report from the relevant committee). The last revision is only a months old, so it should be pretty current:

http://biometrics.nist.gov/cs_links/ibpc2012/presentations/Day4/IVBCReport_v1.8.pdf

Pages 50-52 discuss some of the relevant issues.

Here is a 2011 report from "The National Biomatrics Challenge" from the NSTC.

http://www.biometriccoe.gov/_doc/BiometricsChallenge2011_protected.pdf

Page 14 talks about voice.

Enjoy.

The thread is about this specific homicide in Florida, and the relevant issue is whether or not this expert's new software will pass the Frye standard in a future trial.

That in no way equates to an attack on the whole field of voice analysis.

 

[crimresearch]

That is not what I heard.

Where do you get your information?

Somewhere between post #1 and the post to which you replied.

 

[nadsat]

Dear Lord. It is painful to watch this debate over so-called scientific standards -- in fact, the whole "CSI: Internet" has been hard to sit through.

Here's the latest from NIST on biometrics standards (investigatory report from the relevant committee). The last revision is only a months old, so it should be pretty current:

http://biometrics.nist.gov/cs_links/ibpc2012/presentations/Day4/IVBCReport_v1.8.pdf

Pages 50-52 discuss some of the relevant issues.

Here is a 2011 report from "The National Biomatrics Challenge" from the NSTC.

http://www.biometriccoe.gov/_doc/BiometricsChallenge2011_protected.pdf

Page 14 talks about voice.

Enjoy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8169364&postcount=4994

 

[Moss]

While it's interesting that two people happen to share the same link to a pdf on biometrics, I wonder if either of them has actually taken notice that the same paper actually contains a description of an exchange format and not a survey on the topic itself. While it is an interesting read on how metadata about such a record are to be stored I'm not exactly sure which point it serves to illuminate.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Dear Lord. It is painful to watch this debate over so-called scientific standards -- in fact, the whole "CSI: Internet" has been hard to sit through.

Here's the latest from NIST on biometrics standards (investigatory report from the relevant committee). The last revision is only a months old, so it should be pretty current:

http://biometrics.nist.gov/cs_links/ibpc2012/presentations/Day4/IVBCReport_v1.8.pdf

Pages 50-52 discuss some of the relevant issues.

Here is a 2011 report from "The National Biomatrics Challenge" from the NSTC.

http://www.biometriccoe.gov/_doc/BiometricsChallenge2011_protected.pdf

Page 14 talks about voice.

Enjoy.

I don't see how either paper is really useful. Perhaps you could let us know what you think the relevant parts are (beyond the page numbers). Thanks.

 

[WildCat]

Dear Lord. It is painful to watch this debate over so-called scientific standards -- in fact, the whole "CSI: Internet" has been hard to sit through.

Here's the latest from NIST on biometrics standards (investigatory report from the relevant committee). The last revision is only a months old, so it should be pretty current:

http://biometrics.nist.gov/cs_links/ibpc2012/presentations/Day4/IVBCReport_v1.8.pdf

Pages 50-52 discuss some of the relevant issues.

Here is a 2011 report from "The National Biomatrics Challenge" from the NSTC.

http://www.biometriccoe.gov/_doc/BiometricsChallenge2011_protected.pdf

Page 14 talks about voice. Enjoy.

And makes it quite clear that voice samples have to be consistent and the recording environment has to be comparable.

These 2 professional expert witnesses in the Martin case, one armed with sooper-sekrit software and the other with a golden ear, claim to be able to do this with completely different voice samples (spoken words and a screamed word not included in the spoken word) and wildly inconsistend recording environments (a direct call to 911 and a background scream picked up at a distance and through a wall).

Is anyone still gong to defend these 2 bozos?

 

[johnny karate]

??

If it doesn't 'line up' with GZ version of events, doesn't that make it a lie ? What's the other option ?

You tell me. You're the one equivocating.

Just to be clear, let me summarize your argument as I understand it:

GZ attorney claims GZ sustained a serious cut to the head.
In the video, there is no bandage visible on GZ head.
Therefor he did not sustain a serious cut and the attorney is lying.

Which part did I get wrong ?

Your only error would be in lack of specificity. I would summarize it as follows:

- Zimmerman's attorney made a specific claim about the nature of the injury Zimmerman sustained.

- The video footage contradicts this claim.

- Therefore, the claim regarding the injury is untrue, or at the very least highly dubious.

 

[Xulld]

I had to transcribe this, for some odd reason my copy from PDF was not working. So please correct any mistypes you see, thanks.

In spite of the advances made in speaker verification since 2006, speaker recognition as a biometric application is still faced with many challenges including the lack of a standard measurement for acceptance, difficulties with the capture of a consistent voice sample at enrollment and the performance issues associated with the lack of comparable recording environments between the enrollment and the test sample.

http://www.biometriccoe.gov/_doc/Bio..._protected.pdf