Dave's nonsense

Hallelujah! Dave has finally come out of his own little world (in which he is the #1 expert on everything) and noticed my posts about his 911 analysis!!! Apparently it has taken him two months to respond though ?????

Now I've got my own thread over at jamesons where Dave rails against some posts of mine (mark my words - it will only be a matter of time before Rainsong will add some snide comment - she can't resist threads which attack me or my posts! :sleep:

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID37/358.html


Unfortunately, in classic jamesonian style, Dave fails to provide references to my posts from which he quotes and therefore fails to place them in any context. I made many posts about the 911 tape and Dave's analysis of it that I don't recall where I made the posts he particularly chose to quote from. I'm not going to waste MY time looking for them. I always provide the source for posts that I choose to discuss. If Dave is any kind of self-respecting academic, he would do the same. (Note that failure to do so would automatically DISCREDIT any paper which he wrote had this been a legitimate academic exercise.)

My bottom line response is that I stand by all that I posted. The fact that Dave needs to ask:-

kind of sums it all up and is one reason why Dave's "analysis" would never stand up in court!

Dave says

My response
Yes, Rainsong took it upon herself to paraphrase one of my posts and carry it outwith its context to jameson's forum. She did this entirely off her own back and I responded to her actions in this post at Purgatory:-

http://forums.delphiforums.com/PurgatoryII/messages?msg=1191.120

Jayelles to Rainsong at Purgatory

I requested that Rainsong provide Dave with a link to my entire post. She did not - presumably because she wished to control what Dave saw.

Dave continues:-

My response
At the time I made these posts, I was in contact with a very eminent Forensic Audio Expert. He has never worked on the Ramsey case, but he is extremely distinguished in his field. My expert was instrumental in setting the American standards for Forensic Audio Analysis - the standards are necessary for legal proceedings. He is so distinguished, that when I first e-mailed him, I really didn't expect him to reply let alone continue to indulge my questions about his area of expertise. He was very patient and helpful and our correspondence continued for several months.

In my e-mail discussions with my expert, I referred to Dave's analysis. My expert posed the questions which I subsequently posted on Purgatory in the hope that perhaps Dave would read them there. However, the questions were taken to Dave by Rainsong - somewhat paraphrased. In his response, Dave suggested that the person asking the questions did not know what they were talking about (see emboldened text).

In fact,

http://forums.delphiforums.com/PurgatoryII/messages?msg=1191.123


Dave also goes on to say:-

My response
The expert was provided with the URL to Dave's report and actually, the term "knowledge engineering" is mine. The questions were suggested by my expert, but they were written in my words. Of knowledge engineering, dave says:-

ROFL! so now Dave is also an expert on linguistics in the UK! Actually, the term 'knowledge engineering' is used quite unaffectedly here to describe the process of acquiring knowledge and applying it effectively. The more I read of Dave's posts, his reluctance to discuss his analysis with anyone unless they have conducted the analysis themselves (bear in mind that HIS analysis cannot be replicated because he used a program he wrote himself!), the more I think it is Dave who "thinks he knows a lot about technical issues, but really doesn't".

The very fact that Dave states:-

Is really the cherry on the cake In fact, spectrographical analysis would form the basis of any report. It would NOT be a "type of analysis" which wouldn't be included!

 

Rofl

Took her less than 2 hours!

 

More

Dave said of his own report:-

In fact, much of my criticism of Dave stemmed from his apparent refusal to answer questions about his analysis.

He demonstrated exceptional arrogance in presenting his own analysis as worthy without any proof of testing or adherance to standards.

He also states that he doesn't read the other forums so I have no idea if he will even read this thread. That in itself shows a closed mind and one not suited to unbiased research. By ONLY reading at jameson's he closes his mind to alternative arguments. I have no reason to believe any research/experiments conductd by him would be any different.

 

Candy

Candy shows her extreme ignorance of this subject AND of my criticisms of Dave's analysis when she said:-

http://www.cybersleuths.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004618

If she had half an inkling about the subject matter, she would not be saying "great post". Clearly her only reason for doing so is because it is a post which attacks me.

What is most ironic about this is that the expert who dismissed Dave's analysis as severely flawed is actually someone who knows Candy. He spoke highly of her in one of his e-mails to me. At the time, I had no reason to disagree as our e-mail exchanges took place before Candy's vendetta against me began. However, I am sorely tempted to send him copies of candy's posts and tell him what she is really like. I understand he is a good friend of one of Candy's professor friends.

 

More

This is a copy of a post of mine from my own forum. It summarieses my reasons for being critical of Dave's analysis. Dave, jameson & co would have people believe that I am criticl of his analysis because it suggests Burke's voice is not on the tape. People need only read this to see that is not the case:-

 

Another

Another post from my forum

 

Oh please. I don't claim to be a forensic audio expert, but even I know what a spectrograph and spectrogram are. Dave is clearly not an expert, and obviously feels threatened by someone who is.



IMO

 

Deary me

Rainsong says:-

When is Rainsong going to learn about posting protocol? I certainly did quote phrases from Dave's post BUT I ALSO POSTED THE LINK TO THE THREAD -- that places the quotes in context. This is a concept that Rainsong simply does not understand. By posting the link, I am offering everyone the opportunity to go and read ALL of Dave's post. If I've misrepresented it, then everyone will see that.

This is quite contrary to the practices of jameson's forum where they take phrases and post them WITHOUT linking to the source. This practice serves only to highlight the lack of credibility that these people have.

Besides, Dave posted the phrase. His undoing was his own.

Incidentally, I read a post at Purgatory which seems to suggest that Rainsong might have been banned from there. If this is correct, then that will be THREE forums that she has been banned from (of which I am aware).

 

Dave

Has responded somewhat ambiguously:-

Dave has refused to answer questions about his analysis - unless it is with someone who has also conducted the experiment (not likely since he used his own program). I really seem to have rattled their cage over this one. That is always a sign that they are running scared and must spin thmselves into a frenzy. jameson has also got another BORG thread running. That seems to be mainly what her forum is about these days. It's just filled with anti-BORG posts.

I'm glad Dave has acknowledged my criticisms of his analysis. Hopefully, it will make readers of their forum realise that his analysis IS questionable. I also hope Rainsong bends herself out of shape on this thread and keeps it at the top. :kilroy:

 

Anyone who took Engineering 101 should know what a spectrograph and spectrogram are and what they are used for. I doubt Dave knows the first thing about signal analysis based on his "report." He probably doesn't even know what a "gold set" is and clearly didn't adhere to standards of any kind much less those set by the American Audio Engineering Society. Most engineers are eager to share their research. Wonder why Dave isn't? JMH&CPO


Hey Dave?




:bsflag:

 

Poor Baby

Dave says (same thread as above):-

Yes, we see what you mean Dave and if Rainsong had bothered to provide you with a link to the original thread you would have seen that I did have a problem and posted THIS:-

http://forums.delphiforums.com/PurgatoryII/messages?msg=1191.120

Rainsong paraphrased my post, and I paraphrased Dave's. However, I provided a link to Dave's post and Rainsong did NOT provide a link to mine. BIG difference.

 

Btw

Rainsongs words:-

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID37/358.html

I don't recall using the words "complete idiot". Is Rainsong subconsciously revealing her innermost thoughts ......?

 

Rainsong

Rainsong is a poster who has been banned from several forums for her personal attacks on other members. She contributes little to discussions and posts mainly to make snide comments against others.

Almost half of the posts on the Jayelles thread have been made by Rainsong -all are personal attacks. Rainsong has conducted a vendetta against me ever since I unwittingly exposed a hat game she was playing at Websleuths.

I hope that thread does stay at the top in jamesons. It draws attention to questions about the validity of Dave's tape analysis.

 

I know, Jayelles, I saw that too.

"Rainsongs words:-
Quote:
.....to show the BORG world what a complete idiot you are. "

 

Dave's analysis

Dave's report tells HOW he analysed the Ramsey 911 tape. I had some legitimate and highly relevant questions about his experiment.

I wanted to know how he had quality assured his technique. He wrote his own program - I wanted to know how he knew it worked effectively. He gave no discussion of testing or the meeting of standards in his report which was effectively, just a load of techno-mumbo-jumbo (it impressed his forum buddyds, but not someone who is an expert in this field).

I wanted to know if he had compared his technique with other audio analyses - several "before and after" examples are freely available on the Internet. It would have been a good "control" if Dave had enhanced one of those and held his result up against their result to enable us to see how effective his technique was.

As it stood, Dave performed an analysis of the 911 tape and produced some audio clips which he stated were the results. He offered nothing to support the validity of his work other than boasts about his "trained ear" and arrogant swipes at anyone who questioned it - questioning their authority or motives to ask questions.

Can you imagine how this guy might get on in the business of forensic audio analysis? Can you imagine him in a witness box being asked about his compliance with Forensic Audio Standards? Can you imagine him telling the examiner to shut up, and that unless the examiner had performed this same analysis Dave would refuse to discuss the issue with him?

Dave refused to answer questions, he dismissed hard and relevant questions which were posed by one of the top guys in the field of forensic audio analysis saying that they were like:-

Almost a year later, he responded with a post which didn't source his quotes - affirmation that his "analyses" lack a fundamental quality. He seems most upset that his snide remark about the person posing the questions "not being familiar with" audio enginnering, spectral analysis, signal analysis etc - was paraphrased as "doen't know what they are talking about" in relation to forensic audio analysis. If Dave didn't MEAN that, I'd be interested to know what he does mean. He's obviously running scared. One can be forgiven for suspecting that he doesn't want to answer questions about his analysis because his technique doesn't meet the standards. If they did, he'd be happy to answer these questions and prove it. Instead we get mutterings about not documenting every analysis he performed!

Above all, note that the questions remain unanswered. Ask yourself "why" anyone would steadfastly refuse to answer some simple questions about a piece of work they carried out? Ask yourself why this person and their supporters choose instead to attack the person asking the questions, questioning their motives for asking the questions. If Dave's analysis was valid, he would WANT to prove that. He wouldn't dodge questions about it.

Dave performed his analysis on a pentium III computer using a program he wrote himself and a Lite version of some audio software. He questions the use of spectrographs ... gosh, one wonders why the FBI use companies like Aerospace.

Why do that when they could hire Dave and his "trained ear"?

 

Dave's most revealing statement

IMO, this is Dave's most revealing statement on that thread:-

Deary, deary me. "BORG mentality"???? In FACT, one most certainly does not have to be "BORG" to question the validity of Dave's analysis and if Dave was a balanced thinker, he would know that full and well. It is precisely critical thinking which leads one to question the validity of an experiment - and to do so in the form of reasonable and intelligent questions!

I challenge the validity of anything which "appears to" support my theories on the surface - I challenge it because I do NOT wish to have egg on my face at a later date if it is revealed that I accepted something without checking it out.

The FACT that Dave does not read other forums shows that his mind is not open to discussions which challenge his opinions. That he chooses only to read at a forum which accepts the validity of his input without question, gives me no reason to suppose that his reearch techniques would be any different.

At no stage have any of these RSTers justified their attacks on me or my questioning of Dave's analysis. They don't say "Jayelles thinking is flawed because ....." or "Jayelles is wrong because ....." or "That is not valid question because ....". Instead they make personal and unsubstantiated attacks or they attack my vocabulary or call me a BORG (or make crass comments about "mentality" or "conditions" or circles appearing on one's skin)!

It reminds me of when I posted MY analysis of the "stungun" images. I asked for questions, explained how I did it, urged others to duplicate it and post their findings. I was open to criticism. I explained how I performed controls and how I validated my findings. Margoo's response was to state that my experiment had "many flaws of logic". I asked Margoo repeatedly (at least six times) to tell me what these were and she declined to respond.

Criticism is only valid if it is supported. jameson's members flame and criticise and name call and they do NOT back it up - neither with reason nor with sources.

 

Jayelles, I wouldn't waste my time on the swamp and it's critters. Only a few twisted souls read and post there. I maybe sneak a peek once a month....it's the same old same old. Jameson, her hats and a few posters...no one reads the swamp anymore.

Rainsong is Jams....I hate to see you upset over Dave's ignorance. If fact I think the swampette herself tries to keep you off other aspects of the case, with this garbage, 'cause you are so good at finding out the truth on other matters of the case.

 

It's been my observation that there are certain posters who feel threatened by anyone who posts with intelligence and with facts to back up their posts. I don't know why this is for sure; I suspect it's probably a combination of jealousy and hatred, but most of all I think these posters do not want anyone stealing their thunder. The swamp teems with these types of posters, and we all know Candy is famous for her tantrums and attacks against anyone who she thinks is a threat to her self-annointed superior self.

I stopped reading at the swamp, because, really, what's the point? Their whole existence seems to be to, in their feeble way, degrade others who don't abide by their party line. In the final analysis, we're going to find out just how unimportant jameson and her Rambots are. In the meantime, there's enough evil in this world without going to the swamp and deliberately exposing oneself to it. I don't give a crap what they say about me;little minds never impressed me. They aren't worthy of notice, and they most certainly are not to be compared to the intelligent and worthy posters we have on FFJ.

It's not even a case of ignoring them with me, anymore. It's about not having any interest in what their small minds are conjuring up now. I've seen it all, there. There's nothing left to see. They are worthless morons.

 

I have certainly found my interest dwindling there over the past year or so. There's only so many "BORG" threads that one can stomach reading.

I read jameson's forum only AFTER I've read everything else and AFTER I've read the Big Brother News site! Sometimes I don't have time. I don't read her "BORG" threads at all.

 

You said it WY!