Split Thread henryco's new paper

[Redford]

I have to ask. What does "exactly similar" mean?

Like this
Like this

The two "Like this" above are exactly similar in the sens that you can superpose both and get every pixel to match.

That being said W.D.Clinger relevantly pointed that in that specific case both envelopes don't come from the same bit and so that, due to data compression and display engine from the editing software, you could have some slight differences. I pointed that it doesn't change the fact that if they were coming from the same sound copied and pasted you still could see it by comparing the peaks relative positions and amplitudes - because they're of too massive scale compared to the size of potential artifacts. As there is no match at all, we have to conclude both explosions don't come from the same sample.

That being said, if the whole thing's an edit the simple and natural way to do it would be to find a source with several explosion sounds, take two of them and mix them with the original tape's sound. Considering making two sounds instead of one doesn't help you convince people that there is a DM here I can't see why someone would fake it this way but hey, we've seen stranger things happen both side of the fence.

 

[DGM]

Like this
Like this

The two "Like this" above are exactly similar in the sens that you can superpose both and get every pixel to match.

That being said W.D.Clinger relevantly pointed that in that specific case both envelopes don't come from the same bit and so that, due to data compression and display engine from the editing software, you could have some slight differences. I pointed that it doesn't change the fact that if they were coming from the same sound copied and pasted you still could see it by comparing the peaks relative positions and amplitudes - because they're of too massive scale compared to the size of potential artifacts. As there is no match at all, we have to conclude both explosions don't come from the same sample.

That being said, if the whole thing's an edit the simple and natural way to do it would be to find a source with several explosion sounds, take two of them and mix them with the original tape's sound. Considering making two sounds instead of one doesn't help you convince people that there is a DM here I can't see why someone would fake it this way but hey, we've seen stranger things happen both side of the fence.

OK, now I follow what your getting at. Basically the only way to resolve this would be to analyze the original tracks.

 

[Redford]

OK, now I follow what your getting at. Basically the only way to resolve this would be to analyze the original tracks.

Actually I am no expert in audio data analysis so I don't know it for sure, but my bet is that there are very little chance for this to be certified or proven wrong 100%. What can be said IMO is that the claim that there are some obvious traces of falsification is wrong. Now as for many of the items we see presented as evidences in those discussions the chain of custody has enough weakness so someone can always come up and say "we can't be sure this isn't forged evidence" and no matter how sterile this is, I am pretty sure it's right from time to time.

 

[240-185]

Lol wut? Somebody is questioning my analysis, months later? I almost forgot I did this, and I moved on something else! However, ktesibios did a much better job!
I've a better idea for you, Redford: do yourself your audio analysis, or stay in that other french twoofer forum.

By the way, this is the only video where those weird noises can be heard. I'm telling again what the main problem you are trying to avoid is: why are there stereo sounds on a mono recording?

 

[carlitos]

George Martin?

 

[Redford]

Lol wut? Somebody is questioning my analysis, months later? I almost forgot I did this, and I moved on something else! However, ktesibios did a much better job!
I've a better idea for you, Redford: do yourself your audio analysis, or stay in that other french twoofer forum.

I don't need too. I've explained why your point is proven wrong in the first place. Show me a match between the two envelopes and you may ask me some work, but you can't, because there are not and you simply told crap in the first place. Now I will not spend time to explain this to you any further than what I said, which is enough for a teenager to understand.

Also note, as stated before, that if you want to stick to your ridiculously false understanding of what you've actually demonstrated, fine by me. I just hope I'll find you use that argument in front of an open audience (ie not here) and make you look like a fool in public in a way you'd totally disserve, because I'd have warned you .

By the way, this is the only video where those weird noises can be heard. I'm telling again what the main problem you are trying to avoid is: why are there stereo sounds on a mono recording?

Because it's actually stereo. A mono sample would have exactly matching envelopes on L and R channels. A stereo sample of a sound coming from equal distance from the two microphone would look vaguely mono but will not match, because of all the closer ambient sounds. The sound looks exactly as expected considering what is recorded from where.

 

[240-185]

You're missing the entire point of my analysis. It was based on the sound, not the graphical spectrum. Fail.

BTW, the burden of proof is on your side. I mustn't prove that your assertions are clueless. *You* have to backup your claims. If the recording was in stereo, we should have also heard the collapse in stereo with the explosions. That's not the case.