Post by GKnoll Post by Steve Barber Post by GKnoll Post by Steve Barber Post by GKnoll Post by Steve Barber
The word "Market" spoken by Police Officer A along side the word spoken
by Police Officer B. Officer A is the first voice in each of the segments,
Officer B is the second voice in each of the segments.
You will hear four repeats within the four separate segments of
comparisons between what Officer A said and officer B said during their
two separate channel one radio transmissions they made. The purpose of
this is to allow the listener to note that there are two syllables within
Officer B's speech. According to Gknoll, it is the word "Mic".
Segment 1. This segment is played with the tempo slightly slowed. The
first voice you hear is that of Officer A. He is saying the word
"Market". The second voice higher in pitch is that of Officer B. In this
and the second segment the pitch of officer B's voice(and only his voice)
has been raised slightly to enable the listener to be able to distinctly
hear the two syllables within the word he says. The word comes from
Officer B's transmission that "Gknoll" claims is "Mic"--not "mic
off"--just the word "Mic".
Segment 2. The same recording as above except that the tempo has been
brought to just below normal speed. The voice pitches remain the same as
they are in segment one with the pitch of Officer B's voice slightly
raised. only the tempo of the original recording has been brought back to
Segment 3. The same recording as above except that the voice of Officer B
is his natural voice along with that of officer A. Only the tempo of the
recording track has been slowed not the voice pitch.
Segment 4. The recording both tempo and pitch are played at normal
Steve, you are spending an awful lot of time trying to attack me. This
is the second thread that you named after me. That tells me you are the
one who is desperate.
Anyway, we have been over this before, and as before I made a picture to
illustrate what you say you are doing.
Inside the left rectangle is the waveform for the word "market" as
spoken by #38. Of course you have mangled the hell out of it so now it
sounds (and looks) nothing like market. In fact, now it sounds like
"maurio klop", which is 4 syllables. I thought the word "market only had
Here is what the audio inside the left rectangle sounds like...
Inside the second rectangle is the wave form for what you think is the
word "market" spoken by some unidentified person. Here is the clip for
the audio inside the right rectangle. When I listen to this audio I hear
In this image I show you the waveform for the words that I hear as mic
off. To the left of the vertical red bar is the word mic. To the right
of the vertical red bar is the word off.
And here is the corresponding audio .... (mic off)
You live in complete denial. I just proved to you that your nonsense "mic
off" isn't "mic off" at all, with solid proof, and still you deny that you
You post under different names, "Bob Ringler" and "Mike Rago" and God
knows what/who else, in forums and groups you have posted in.
You can claim that you have won your little game, but the fact is, you
I am not going to dignify anything more that you post.
Translation. You lost.
You know what would happen if you pursue this line of reasoning.
Everything you posted involved some form of pitch change, speed change or
tempo change. You had to do that because you had to obscure the sound of
the actual syllables you hear. You tried to focus instead on only counting
syllables because you thought that was a way that you could push your
incorrect theory ( that the words "mic off" are really "market hall"). I
have shown that you failed on each of those attempts.
Above I showed that you have a flawed method. You presented a word that we
know is "market". According to you it has only two syllables. However,
after you mangled it, it had 4 syllables. That shows that your method is
I am not sure that you even know what is the definition of a syllable. You
need to look it up.
I'm going to go against my better judgment and go back on my word, and
reply to this.
I didn't lose anything. You are going to tell me -and everyone here who
is paying any attention to this topic-that within this clip, you cannot
hear Officer B saying what sounds like "Fu** it"? Give me a break!
Its a little to be "self righteous", by claiming that you are going
against you better judgement, since you already have posted about 30 posts
and started 3 threads trying to rebut this. For the same reason it is a
little late for you to claim you are not going to dignify this with a
response. Your "self righteous" ship sailed a long time ago because all
you have done, from the first post you posted on this in a different
thread now far far away, is attack me.
Anyone listening to that clip of yours does not even know which mangling
is officer A and officer B.
I did everyone a favor and broke down your clip into Officer A and Officer
Here, again, is that picture which illustrates what you glued together.
Inside the left rectangle is the waveform for the word "market" that we
know is spoken by Officer A. Of course you have mangled the hell out of it
so now it sounds (and looks) nothing like market. In fact, now it sounds
like "maurio klop", which is 4 syllables. I thought the word "market only
had 2 syllables?
Here is your audio of Officer A saying the word "market"
It sounds like "maurioklop". We know this unmangled word is "market". So
you managed to turn a 2 syllable word into a 4 syllable word.
I really do not have to go any further with this because that shows that
you method is flawed. You turned a two syllable word, "market" into
something that has 4 syllables and sounds like "maurioklop".
But for completeness I will play just what you say Officer B is saying
To my ear, that segment sounds like "coff".
But that is meaningless because the segment you are playing IS NOT the
"mic off" segment.
Here is an image showing the "mic off" segment.It is repeated 3 times
And here is the audio for just the "mic off" segment. The "mic off"
segment is repeated 3 times
And here is the audio for the entire "Murray keep your mic off" segment
played at different speeds.
I called your bluff every single time. All you have been doing is
As I said before, everything you posted involved some form of pitch
change, speed change or tempo change. You had to do that because you had
to obscure the sound of the actual syllables you hear. You tried to focus
instead on only counting syllables because you thought that was a way that
you could push your incorrect theory ( that the words "mic off" are really
"market hall"). I have shown that you failed on each of those attempts.
You steadfastly refuse to mention the syllables that you hear because it
would then be obvious that you have been bluffing.
And I will continue to attack you until you knock this crap off, which
will be never. I *am* going against my better judgment even wasting my
time with you on this because what you are saying is just plain silly!
You are purposely refusing to admit that the word--which you claim is
"mic"-- contains two syllables. Oh yes, I know...you think that I don't
even know the definition of the word "syllable". Well, you're dead wrong.
I aced English class in school so don't tell me that I don't know the
definition of the word "syllable".
noun: syllable; plural noun: syllables
a unit of pronunciation having one vowel sound, with or without
surrounding consonants, forming the whole or a part of a word; e.g., there
are two syllables in water and three in inferno.
a character or characters representing a syllable.
the least amount of speech or writing; the least mention of something.
"I'd never have breathed a syllable if he'd kept quiet"
The definition of the word defines what I am hearing (but which you claim
not to hear)contains two syllables, not one. The word "MIC" is one
I have had to slow the speech tempo down(without distorting the pitch of
the voice)run the voice through a program that removes background noise
and interference ( which in this case is heterodyne tones) in hopes that
you would be to be able to hear that there are two syllables in the speech
you claim is the word "MIC". You claim that you can't hear the two
syllables. You claim that I do this "to obscure the sound of the
syllables". THE SPEECH HAS TO BE SLOWED IN ORDER TO HEAR THE SYLLABLES!
THAT IS WHY THESE PROGRAMS ARE AVAILABLE AND USED IN INVESTIGATION
PURPOSES NOW! SYLLABLES FORM WORDS! Others I have played the clip for in
another group can hear two syllables as plain as day. One of those who
listened was in Law Enforcement. You are just being ridiculous. The word
"market contains two syllables. I openly admit I mistakenly was posting
the comparison between officer A (with call # 38) speaking the word
"Market" and officer B (with no ID) saying the word that I know to be
"market". It was just too much for you to comprehend. So... what I did
today was isolate just the word spoken that you believe to be the word
"MIC"--not the words "MIC OFF"--just the word "MIC"-- and have taken just
that word that you claim is "MIC" with nothing else to compare it to,
slowed the tempo segment 1, returned the speed to natural, segment 2,
removed the background noise and if you still want to claim that you are
hearing the word "MIC", then you have done nothing but convince me that
you are doing nothing but living in denial, playing games and being
downright silly. It's as plain as day. Two syllables. It therefore is
*NOT*the word "MIC"!
And as for your remark that I the reason I slowed down the speech tempo,
raise the pitch of the officer's voice was to "obscure" the sound--nothing
could be further from the truth! You are listening to garbled, faint,
distorted speech that opens the transmission by Officer B, claiming to
hear him say "Murray keep your mic off"--which makes absolutely NO SENSE
WHATSOEVER except in your mind. If this were in a courtroom and you tried
to pull something off like you are doing here, claiming that you can
decipher the words "Murray Keep your" from that recording they would throw
it out of the courtroom! Even running filters through the speech doesn't
bring out any detail in first sounds of the transmission! It's laughable,
ludicrous on its face. The only clear words that are spoken within that
transmission are the last two words!
If you want to believe that I have been "bluffing" go for it. That's your
problem, not my problem. I haven't been doing any such thing as
"bluffing".I have no need or reason to. Period.
In closing, who else besides myself has been discussing/arguing this
with you? Isn't this your reason for posting threads here--you want to
"debate"? I guess you think that if you put something out there, everyone
is just going to take you at your word that it is what you say it is, and
that's that. You saw the types of response you got from others. and they
gave it to you with good reason. This whole idea of yours is silly.
And posting "images" of what speech you claim to hear? You have to be
kidding! Doesn't mean a thing. I can do the same thing, but all that
"image" shows is what *sound* looks like on a graph, then you added your
own words above the graph as if the graph proves that you are right. NICE
TRY! But no dice! A bunch of spikes. That's all. Nothing, no way to
identify at all what is being said! If the image TOLD you what words were
being spoken, that would be fantastic! But it doesn't so it 's a failed
attempt on your part to convince anyone that you are correct in what you
claim is being said. I am quite familiar with spectrograms and such. When
I discovered the Decker crosstalk, the Rasmey panel had the channel two
recording --the original source of the Decker transmission to compare the
voice to to determine whether or not it was the same person speaking
saying the same thing. You have absolutely NOTHING to use like that. That,
too would be thrown out of court.
It's a shame you won't post at any of the open forums, like Duncan
McRae's. It's been very frustrating posting comments here and having to
wait for hours before the comment is posted, due to .John's hectic
schedule. But, you mentioned in the past that you won't post in those
forums, which I think is totally silly. For the last time, I am posting
this. This is the word that you and you alone believe to be "MIC".
Clearly, the word spoken contains two syllables. It's one word. The word
you claim to be "off" is not included--just the word which you believe to
be "MIC". Nothing else. Oh, and don't give me that crap about my slowing
the speech down to "obscure". The six repeats concluding the clip are
played at normal speed, as heard on the original recording. The only way
ANYONE is going to be able to count the syllables is with the tempo of the
speech slowed. Slowing the tempo doesn't change anything where syllables
or words spoken are concerned itt merely slows down the speech on the
recording. You can't grasp that concept. Or won't. Regardless of what you
believe -- IT'S ALL IN HOW MANY SYLLABLES WE HEAR. SYLLABLES FORM WORDS.
You need to get that through your head.