http://www.jameson245.com/tape1.mp3 is the casette tape - the one that the BPD had enhanced long ago, the one Lin Wood shared with the networks. In the casette, I don't hear anything that I would bring to any lab to enhance. At the end, I think Patsy hangs up while the 911 operator was calling her name. Then I hear what I would think is the tape recorder - the repeated sound that sounds just like my own reel-to-reel turning a tape.

http://www.jameson245.com/tape3.mp3 is the enhancement of the end of the casette tape- - the section where the BPD says they heard conversation. Please listen to it.

http://www.jameson245.com/tape2.mp3 is the CD. The CD was made in 2003 as part of a larger project - the BPD started putting all the 911 calls on CD for more secure storage - - and the Ramsey 911 call was included. In the CD, we hear much more, the actual moment when the operator starts talking to Patsy. In some ways, the CD isn't as good as the casette - BUT I think it is very important because it DOES contain the noises at the front of the conversation. IfI had been investigating the case, I might have had THOSE parts enhanced, but that did NOT happen. At first I didn't understand why the BPD had cut off the front of the 911 tape - - butnow I think I do know. I think the police heard what I heard - - the same repeated sound found at the end of the tape. Listen for yourself and see if you agree. Then realize that if the sound was there before and after - - - it is hardly likely the sound was from the Ramsey house at all - - it was more likely from the recording equipment at the 911 emergency center.

http://www.jameson245.com/tape4.mp3 is an MP3 file that is made up of three loops from
the audio CD track.
In the Left channel are various audio sections, one from the point
before the call is answered, from the supposed Burke voice, and from
the extra CD stuff at the very end.
In the Right channel is the supposed John voice.

What do YOU hear?

A report from Dave follows to document what he did - - be warned that it may be detailed and confusing to some of us....

He mentions two more bits and I will put them here asap.

This is what Dave says about them:
"They are from the cassette tape, comparing the timing of the supposed Burke and supposed John voices. They are filtered out in a way that shows that they cannot be voices over the Ramsey phone line, and they are compared to each other in Left and Right stereo channels so you can hear that the timing is suspiciously similar. This leads me to conclude that they are NOT voices, and that there is something too mechanical about them, suggesting a mechanical origin."

Report to follow.

(for the record, the enhancement done by Aerospace for the Boulder police is not public. I think it may well be sealed as "grand jury evidence" and that would mean NO ONE has heard it since the grand jury ended.)

20 August 2003, 24 August 2003

"Dave" on Jameson's Webbsleuths (www.webbsleuths.com)

Abstract

Copies of the recording of the emergency 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey were analyzed using audio
software; results are discussed. It is concluded that purported conversation between the Ramseys is a
combination of several different noise sources that give only the appearance of conversation. MP3®
files have been produced which demonstrate both spectral differences between noise sources and the
similarity between different sections of the recordings in terms of timing and cadence, suggesting a
repetitive, mechanical source for some of the sources.

Introduction

On 26 December 1996, Patsy Ramsey, then of Boulder, Colorado, made a 911 emergency call to the
Boulder Regional Communication Center to report the kidnapping of her daughter, JonBenét. The 911
call was recorded, and very recently (July 2003) the Boulder County District Attorney's office has
released audio copies of Patsy Ramsey's 911 call in the form of audio cassette tapes and audio CD's.

A controversy has existed ever since 1997 as to whether or not the recording of the 911 call contains
unintentionally overheard conversation between members of the Ramsey family after the point where it
was assumed that Patsy had hung up the phone. Some of those investigating the case of the murder
of six-year-old JonBenét Ramsey seem to think that this issue is a very important one while others
believe that regardless of what is on the tape, it is of very little evidentiary value, unless it is a
confession of some sort. The main issue appears to be whether or not Burke Ramsey, JonBenét's older
brother, was awake at the time of the 911 call. The Ramseys had maintained that Burke was asleep at
this time while certain investigators had maintained that he was awake and speaking with his parents,
therefore that the elder Ramseys engaged in some sort of deception, so perhaps lied about the
circumstances surrounding the death of their daughter.

This report contains a technical discussion of testing that was done on both an audio cassette
recording and an audio CD that were obtained from the Boulder County DA's office. The audio cassette
and CD track are described, various types of processing are discussed, including separate processing
and testing of portions of the recordings that some believe to be conversation. The conclusion is
reached that these purported conversations are almost certainly not actually conversation by the
Ramseys which is being picked up over their phone line and recorded after Patsy thought she had hung
up the phone. If there is such conversation during the controversial audio sections, it is not audible
even after various types of enhancement. Instead it appears that different types of noise with
different spectral characteristics are superimposed in such a manner as to produce the appearance of
voices. The appearance of voices would no doubt be especially strong in the presence of imagination
empowered by suggestion and wishful thinking.

Audio Processing

A cassette tape and an audio CD of the emergency 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey on 26 December
1996 were obtained from the Boulder County District Attorney's office in Boulder, Colorado. For a more
complete description of the audio processing steps applied, please refer to the Appendix. What follows
here is a summary in text form, but is still intended primarily for a technical audience.

The "tape" was a recording on a common-usage, 120-minute audio cassette, a Maxell® UR,
normal-bias tape. This tape was played on a Pioneer® CW-650R dual-cassette tape deck. A digitized
version was produced by feeding the output of the tape deck into a Behringer® Eurorack MX802A
mixer, the output of which was fed into a Terratech EWX-2496 mastering sound card that was
installed in a Pentium III® computer. The recording software was Steinberg® WaveLab(tm) Lite, set
for monophonic recording, 24-bit, 96,000 samples per second.

The "CD track" was a single audio track on a generic, brandless CD-R or CD-RW, probably CD-R. The
track data were so-called CD quality or 16-bit, 44,100 samples per second, stereo (actually dual
monophonic). The audio track was ripped from the CD track using Ahead's Nero® CD burning software
that was bundled with a Creative Labs® 8432E CD/RW CD burner, reportedly a relabeled Plextor®. The
stereo image was discovered to be two completely identical monophonic tracks. The left channel of
the CD track was then upsampled to a monophonic, 24-bit, 96,000 samples per second WAV file using
Syntrillium's CoolEdit® 2000.

Both the tape and the upsampled CD track were then processed through EXE Consulting's Engulf
Audio(tm) software to produce a high-quality stereo image. This high-quality stereo image simulates a
binaural recording, including stereo separation, echo, and reverb, all calculated in a self-consistent
manner by solving the 3-D wave equation for a point source in a large enclosure. The simulated
environment was a large concert hall. The absorption (reverb time T60) was set to 0.30 seconds for
100 Hz and 0.20 seconds for 4,000 Hz. These reverb times are very short for a large concert hall, but
the tape is conversation, so the absorption was increased (T60 decreased). As is well known, reverb
times should be shorter for speech than for orchestral music in order to maintain speech
comprehension. The ideal listening environment for this simulated binaural recording is studio- quality
headphones, but with the fast absorption (short reverb times), the use of computer speakers in an
acoustically dead office space was found to be acceptable. We used primarily studio-quality
headphones for our testing. Normally, this type of step would be performed later rather than earlier.
The reason for performing this step first was to create a stereo image so that following processing
steps could be more readily monitored using studio-quality headphones.

Both stereo images were subjected to dynamics processing (compression and expansion) to bring up
low-level sounds, then noise-reduced using Syntrillium's CoolEdit 2000. Noiseprints were taken from the
stereo images themselves during relatively quiet sections. The tape, in particular, produced a very
noise-free 24/96 stereo WAV file. The CD track was very noisy to begin with, so didn't produce as
noise-free a WAV file.

Both 24/96 stereo WAV files were then downsampled to CD-quality (16- bit, 44,100 stereo) images,
then compressed using the Fraunhofer Institute's MP3 algorithms, licensed by Syntrillium for their
CoolEdit 2000 program. The images were compressed at a rate of 256 KBits per second. They are joint
stereo, MPEG-1, layer 3. (See Reference <2> for a summary of MP3).

General Characteristics of Recordings

The cassette recording begins with Patsy Ramsey saying, "?55 Fifteenth Street." The "7" digit is cut
off at the beginning, but something sounding like the ending "n" sound can be heard. It is possible that
whoever made the cassette tape copy neglected to take into account the unmagnetized tape leader
at the beginning of the cassette tape.

The cassette recording ends with what appears to be typing by the 911 dispatcher. There is a final
louder click sound as if the dispatcher hit a particular key harder than the others. The CD track begins
with buzzing, a quick series of pops, a couple of separated pops, more buzzing, a very brief amount of
noise, then a click which probably was the connection to the Ramsey phone line being made. Patsy
Ramsey utters something immediately after the click, then the dispatcher says, "911 Emergency."
Patsy then utters something else which cannot easily be distinguished, then says, "Police!" The 911
dispatcher starts saying, "What's going..." Then Patsy says, "?55 Fifteenth Street," the point where
the cassette recording starts. It is difficult to hear the "7" of the Ramsey home address in this case
because the 911 dispatcher is talking at that point, as Patsy interrupts her.

The CD track appears to contain another audio section beyond the point where the cassette tape
recording ends. Immediately after the point where the cassette recording ends at what sounds like a
final, loud key click, there is a three or four second section of a buzzing sound on the CD track, the
same as that at the beginning of the track. Then there is a very brief section of noise like an open
microphone followed by a pop. Following this is a section of noise similar to that which can be heard
earlier in the track, immediately after the 911 dispatcher said, "Patsy?" for the last time and prior to
her typing sounds. This later noise section is three or four seconds long. A short series of pops occurs,
then a short section of buzzing sound on top of the noise ends the CD track.

The bulk of the recordings are very similar, as would be expected. A very notable difference between
the recordings is that popping noises occur throughout the CD track that cannot be heard on the
cassette tape recording. The CD track is in general much noisier than the cassette recording. It
appears to be a poor-quality digitized version of what is contained on the cassette tape plus additional
preceding and succeeding audio; however, it does contain this additional, critically important
information, from a forensic standpoint, at the beginning and end of the track. These additional audio
sections were used to draw conclusions about the controversial audio sections which some claim
contain conversation. It is important to note that the controversial sections are NOT contained in the
additional audio sections that are only on the CD track; the controversial sections potentially
containing barely perceptible conversation are on BOTH the cassette recording and the CD track.

Purported Conversation

The audio section of both the tape and the CD track that contains purported conversation begins
shortly after the 911 dispatcher says, "Patsy?" for the fourth time with noise that could possibly be
interpreted as "We're not speaking to you" and ends with a very brief bit of noise resembling "What did
you find?" and containing what sounds like a final, hard keystroke. A separate MP3 file was created for
this particular section from the audio cassette. This should help listeners locate the controversial
section without having to search for it. This section has slightly different audio processing performed
on it in order to help bring out the purported conversation so that listeners can easily identify the
"We're not speaking to you" and "What DID you find" sections. Please refer to the Appendix for more
complete details on audio processing of this section.

Analysis of Noise

Several loops were created from short audio sections extracted from both the digitized cassette tape
and the ripped CD track. Audio sections were extracted from the purported conversation between the
Ramseys after the 911 call was assumed to be completed, from a section prior to the 911 call being
connected to Patsy Ramsey, and from another section on the CD track which appears not to be the
call from Patsy, but is perhaps part of the recording of a subsequent call.

Immediately prior to the connection being made to Patsy Ramsey, there is a very brief audio section
(hereinafter #1) on the CD track that contains noise that sounds as though it could possibly be
conversation. After the last time the 911 dispatcher says, "Patsy?" (the fourth time), there is another
audio section (#2) which is relatively quiet except for some noise which sounds as though it could also
possibly be conversation. It has been alleged at various times since December 1996 that this
conversation was John Ramsey saying something like, "We're not speaking to you." This audio section
is contained on both the cassette tape and the CD track. At the time near the last audible (what is
assumed to be) key press by the 911 dispatcher, there is another section (#3) with noise which could
possibly be conversation. This has been alleged to be Burke Ramsey saying something like, "What DID
you find?" This section is contained on both the cassette tape and the CD track. A final audio section
(#4) containing similar noise to section #2 is contained only on the CD track and follows a section of
buzzing which resembles that of an amplified ground loop where the ground loop is close to electrical
equipment such as a computer. Section #4 also sounds like #1 which is immediately prior to the
connection being made to the Ramsey phone line.

This last audio section lasts about seven seconds and is somewhat of a mystery. It is not contained
on the cassette tape at all, and it appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the call from Patsy.
The intervening buzzing sound between the audio sections #3 and #4 is very similar to the buzzing
sound at the very beginning of the CD track, before audio section #1 starts. During both of these
buzzing sounds, there is no audible input whatsoever, that is no discernible background noise such as
from an open microphone or anything else such as that. This intervening buzzing sound is the
strongest evidence that audio section #4 has nothing to do with Patsy's call. It is fortuitous, however,
that it appears to have the same type of noise as does the recording of Patsy's call, as if it were from
the same original recording system, perhaps something like a hangup call that came in soon after
Patsy's call.

The extracted audio sections were processed again, separately from the rest of the recordings, in
order to determine whether or not they contained conversation. It was noted early on that these
noises had higher frequencies than should be passed over the Ramsey phone line; they were also very
mechanical sounding in their cadence and precision and in their apparently repetitive nature.

Certain of these audio sections were overlaid with each other, one in the stereo Left channel, the
other in the stereo Right channel. With this arrangement, the timing of the audio sections could be
independently altered until a common sound was heard from both the Left and Right channels. If some
sort of repetitive machine noise was present, it should be possible to synchronize the sounds from the
two channels so that they became one, at least for any common, repetitive source. We found that we
could do this with, for example, section #2 in the Right channel and each of the others in the Left
channel. The composite sections were then looped a number of times for ease of listening. It is much
easier to comprehend a short audio section if it is repeated a number of times.

The cassette recording was judged to be probably the most faithful rendition of the master recording
(evidence tape), even though we did not have access to this master. We judge this because of the
excessive amount of extra noise on the CD track. With respect to the digitized audio cassette
recording , it was possible to overlay only audio sections #2 and #3 because sections #1 and #4 were
not present on the audio tape. Nevertheless, it was possible to find a particular offset time, the same
as for the CD track, which seemed to join these sections together. Some of the noise was very similar
in both channels. In particular, the cadence of the two was suspiciously similar.

Two additional loops were made from this overlay of #2 and #3 ("We're not..." and "What DID...") from
the digitized audio cassette recording, one with low-pass filtering, the other with high-pass filtering.
The filtering had a strong effect on certain portions of the noise and not on others, depending on
which type of filtering was performed. If the noise had been conversation from a single individual
uttering a sentence, one would not expect a strong filtering effect which caused the first part of the
sentence to disappear almost completely yet leave the latter portion almost intact. One would also not
expect two completely different utterances (one a statement and one a question, no less) by two
different individuals to have the same cadence. Nor would one expect that word of sentences uttered
in ordinary conversation to be precisely timed as though they were mechanically produced.

To summarize, the loops created were:

CD track

1) Overlay of #2 ("We're not...") in Right channel to #1 (prior to connection) in Left channel.
2) Overlay of #2 in Right to #3 ("What DID...") in Left.
3) Overlay of #2 in Right to #4 (end) in Left.

Tape

1) Overlay of #2 in Right to #3 in Left with high-pass filtering.
2) Overlay of #2 in Right to #3 in Left with low-pass filtering.

Please refer to the Appendix for more complete details.

Discussion

CD track:

Overlay of #2("We're not...) to #1 (prior to connection):

The noise loops from the CD track demonstrate a repetitive noise which is present at various times
throughout the track. In particular, some of that repetitive noise was detected before the 911
dispatcher answered the 911 call from Patsy Ramsey, audio section #1. A portion of this noise is
indistinguishable that of #2. The previously purported conversation by John Ramsey, said to be
something like, "We're not speaking to you" could very well be this repetitive noise ("We're not
speaking...") plus a second, narrow-band "hooting" type of noise ("...to you") that appears to be
centered at approximately 500 Hz, as determined from the tape overlay. The narrow-band hooting
type of sound is repeated during the sounds that are probably the 911 dispatcher's typing. The
repetitive noise ("We're not speaking...") may simply be drowned out at this time by the typing sounds.
It is a part of this "We're not speaking..." section that is similar to the noise of audio section #1,
recorded prior to the 911 dispatcher answering the call from Patsy.

Overlay of #2 to #3 ("What DID..."):

The overlay of sections #2 and #3 displays a very similar cadence for the two different sections. This
should be very surprising if one is expecting John Ramsey to be saying, "We're not speaking to you"
and Burke to be saying "What did you find?" These sections are too mechanical and precise to be
ordinary human conversation. In addition, as just previously mentioned, the long 'u' sound of "...to
you" does not have the same spectral characteristics as the part "(We're) not speaking..." because
the high-pass filtering does away with the former but not the latter, as determined by the tape
overlay below.

Overlay of #2 and #4 (end of track):

The overlay of sections #2 and #4 reveal a repetitive background noise that sounds somewhat like a
dishwasher operating can be heard in both channels at the same cadence. The cadence is precise
enough that it would appear to be a machine noise rather than speech, unless someone is purposefully
speaking in a very mechanical and unnatural manner.

Summary of CD track overlays:

Our conclusion is that there is no discernible conversation during the purported "We're not speaking to
you" and "What DID you find?" sections of the CD track, but that these are instead composed of
background noises, possibly modulated by the recording equipment, for example the automatic gain
control (AGC) which is particularly evident after loud keystrokes. In particular, the section that
precedes the 911 dispatcher's answering of the 911 call (#1) cannot possibly contain speech by the
Ramseys, yet this early background noise is indistinguishable from the noise that is part of purported
conversation between the Ramseys (#2). One can easily fool oneself into believing that there is
conversation, but a more careful examination of the recording, complete with comparisons of one
section of the recording to another by superposing them together in separate stereo channels, allows
one to hear that the background noise is repeated at various times throughout the recording. Other
noises are recorded on top of this repetitive background noise, especially the long 'u' sound, and this
causes the noise to appear not to be as repetitive as more complete analysis shows it to be. There is
also some sort of automatic gain control in operation, as was previously mentioned, which may very
well be causing the repetitive background noise to appear to come and go.

Tape Overlay:

When listening to the overlay of samples extracted from the digitized audio cassette recording which
are high-pass filtered (6,500 and 16,000 Hz bandpass), one can hear ample signal of purported
conversation which, in that case, sounds like clicking that is distinct from the clearly audible keyboard
typing sounds. But this shouldn't be the case because phone lines have a fairly steep cutoff at about
3,000 Hz. Moreover, the long 'u' or "hoot" sound is practically gone. With low-pass filtering (375 and
750 Hz bandpass), we hear hooting sounds and something from the "What DID you find" purported
conversation, but not much of the other purported conversation. Conclusion: As with the CD track
overlay, these noises have different spectral characteristics from voice, and the hooting type of noise
is again found to have different spectral characteristics from the clicking type of sound.

Summary of all overlays:

There appear to be at least four different noise sounds: the background repetitive noise, the
purported "What DID you find," the purported "We're not speaking...,"and the "...to you" hooting type
of sound. None of these have the spectral characteristics of voice over a phone line, although perhaps
the "...not speaking..." comes closest in our analysis. These noises all have different spectral
characteristics from each other. If someone said, "(We're) not speaking...," that same person did not
say, "...to you." Also, because the hooting ("...to you") sound is repeated at intervals during the
typing, and because it is fairly narrow-band, it is unlikely to be the voice of anyone. A very short
instance of this sound is also heard after the click of Patsy's hangup, immediately before the third
"Patsy?" The purported "What DID you find" noise is too broad band to be voice over a phone line. The
"(We're) not speaking..." noise has too many high frequencies at certain specific times (clicks) to be
voice over a phone line. There appears to be some sort of underlying mechanical cadence to some
portion of all the audio sections, even though all the sections do display different spectral
characteristics. Also of interest is that the purported audio sections and the occurrence of the hooting
sounds during the typing occur in an almost periodic fashion <3>.

Conclusion

After extensive processing and analysis, we conclude that recordings of the 911 emergency call made
by Patsy Ramsey to report the kidnapping of her daughter JonBenét do not contain any audible
conversation between any of the Ramseys following Patsy's hanging up the phone. There are too many
discrepancies between the expectations of voice characteristics and the characteristics of the noises
which some have reported as conversation for the hypothesis of additional conversation on the
recording to be accepted. There appear instead to be several different noises with different
characteristics, including at least one that has a cadence and is repeated. It is suggested that the
combinations of these noises provide merely an appearance of conversation, particularly to wishful
thinkers after the idea of conversation has been suggested to them. Unfortunately this noise has not
only been falsely portrayed as conversation, but the idea that it is conversation has been
bootstrapped into a demonstration of deception by the Ramseys, and then to a virtual proof of the
guilt of at least one of the parents.

Further work could be done to test the actual evidence tape to verify these findings, although one
shouldn't expect that the spectral characteristics would be appreciably different; however, one may
find that certain noises that are on the audio cassette and especially on the CD track not to be
present on the evidence tape. One or more of the several noise sources we found may be due to
copying rather than due to the original recording. Unless one of these potential copying artifacts is
masking something, we expect the same conclusions would be reached regarding the lack of audible
conversation from the Ramseys' phone line after Patsy hung up the phone. We also don't expect any
revolutionary findings because after various enhancements, we do clearly hear something that we
could imagine, with a little effort, to be "We're not speaking to you" and "What DID you find?" It would
also perhaps be beneficial to produce a better-quality audio CD for distribution by the District
Attorney's office. It may also prove beneficial to determine the actual audio environment during the
recording of Patsy's 911 call, although it may be far too late to do that accurately if the environment
has changed considerably.

Thanks to the Boulder County District Attorney's office for providing the audio cassette and audio CD.
Thanks to "Jameson" of www.webbsleuths.com for encouragement in this project.

References and Notes

<1> An attempt was made to acknowledge trademarks the first time they are encountered in this
document. CoolEdit is a registered trademark of Syntrillium Software Corporation. WaveLab is a
trademark and Steinberg is a registered trademark of Steinberg Media Technologies AG. Engulf Audio is
a trademark of EXE Consulting. Pioneer is a registered trademark of Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc.
Behringer is a registered trademark of Behringer International GmbH. Nero is a registered trademark of
Ahead Software. MP3 is a registered trademark of Thomson Multimedia. Maxell is a registered
trademark of Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. Creative Labs is a registered trademark of Creative Technology Ltd.
Plextor is a registered trademark of Plextor Corp. Pentium III is a registered trademark of Intel
Corporation. Microsoft and Windows are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. Other
trademarks are trademarks of their respective holders (obviously).

<2> The following web page contains a good summary of what MP3 is all about as well as links to
related pages:

http://www.mp3licensing.com/mp3/mp3.html

<3> The mechanically repetitive noises during this section sound something like "...to you,"
"HOOT-hoot," "HOOT-hoot," "What did..." on the tape and "...to YOU," "hoot-hoo-hoo-HOOT,"
"hoot-hoo-hoo-HOOT," "What did you find" on the CD track. Closer examination indicates that the
"hooting" sounds are also composed of more than one sound. One is almost a short, squawking or
squeaking sort of hoot whereas the other one, usually following the former by a half second or so, is
quieter and more drawn out. The short one is particularly noticeable in two occurrences during the
typing that follows the purported "We're not speaking to you."

Appendix

Specific processing steps.

Specific processing steps.

A) Cassette tape digitizing and processing steps were as follows to produce MP3 file:

Recorded with Steinberg WaveLab Lite: 24-bit, 96,000, monophonic into
a Microsoft® Windows® RIFF format PCM WAV file:
Pioneer CW-650R dual-cassette tape deck to
Behringer EurorackMX802A mixer to
Terratech EWX-2496 master recording sound card.

Engulf Audio from EXE Consulting to create high-quality stereo image:
Concert Hall room (22.51m X 37.51m X 15.01m)
Binaural simulation: Solutions obtained at (11.135m, 15.0m, 3.0m)
(Left) and (11.375m, 15.0m, 3.0m) (Right) in left-handed
coordinate system. Point source placed at (11.135m, 6.0m, 3.0m)
in same system, 9.0m from Left solution. Solves 3-D wave
equation, providing stereo separation, echo, and reverberation in
a self-consistent manner.
Absorption: T60 = 0.30 seconds at 100 Hz, 0.20 seconds at 4000 Hz.
Reverb times kept low to maintain speech comprehension.
Designed for headphone listening.
The reason for performing this step first was to create a stereo
image so that following processing steps could be more readily
monitored using studio-quality headphones.
During this process, the resulting file is normalized to very nearly
0 db while the data are being maintained as double-precision
floating point.

CoolEdit 2000 from Syntrillium for the following steps:
Dynamics Processing:
flat 1.00 : 1 above -20 dB
cmp 2.00 : 1 below -20 dB
exp 10.5 : 1 below -96 dB
Noise Reduction (primarily removed noise produced by tape deck):
Noiseprint from section at end of digitized recording of
cassette tape
4096-point FFT
40 db reduction
Smoothing Amount = 2
Flat, 100%
Trimmed end and beginning to remove non-cassette tape audio
sections. These sections are NOT part of the cassette tape but
were produced between the time the digitizing program was started
and the tape deck was started AND between the time that the tape
deck was stopped and the digitizing program was stopped.
Downsampled from 24-bit, 96,000 samples per second stereo to CD
quality (16-bit, 44,100 samples per second stereo),
Compressed as MP3 using algorithms licensed from Fraunhofer
Institute. 256KBits per second, constant bit rate, 22,050 Hz
maximum band width, "High Quality" Codec.

B) The CD track was ripped from the audio CD using Ahead Nero into a
CD-quality, Microsoft Windows RIFF format PCM WAV file (16-bit,
44,100 samples per second, monophonic). Then the following steps
were performed:

Conversion of two-channel identical monophonic to single-channel
monophonic by removing right channel data using Syntrillium's
CoolEdit 2000.

Engulf Audio from EXE Consulting, same conditions as for the tape
(above, part A).

CoolEdit 2000 from Syntrillium for the following steps:
Dynamics Processing, same settings as for tape (above, part A).
Noise Reduction:
Noiseprint taken from approximately time = 8.95 seconds to 9.85
seconds
4096-point FFT
40 db reduction
NR Level 53
Sloped Noise Reduction Level: 0 Hz -30.2 %, 48,000 Hz -100%
Precision Factor = 5
Smoothing Amount = 2
No trimming was performed.
Noise samples for part C were extracted into separate files.
Downsampled from 24-bit, 96,000 samples per second stereo to CD
quality (16-bit, 44,100 samples per second stereo),
Compressed as MP3 using algorithms licensed from Fraunhofer
Institute. 256KBits per second, constant bit rate, 22,050 Hz
maximum band width, "High Quality" Codec.

C) Four noise samples were taken from the 24-bit, 96,000 samples per
second, stereo file that was upsampled from the CD track (see part
B above) and were each further compressed according to the
following:
flat 1.00 : 1 above -10 dB
cmp 2.99 : 1 below -10 dB
exp 15.3 : 1 below -96 dB

The samples were:

1) From position at beginning of CD track, time = 8.95 seconds to 9.85
seconds.

2) From time = 1:18.67 to time = 1:20.10.

3) From time = 1:23.69 to time = 1:24.67.

4) From approximately time = 1:28.6 to approximately time = 1:32.9.

Noise samples #1, 3, and 4 were edited so that only the left channel
remained.

Noise sample #2 was edited so that only the right channel remained.

Each of noise samples 1, 3, and 4 were overlaid one at a time to noise
sample 2. Noise sample 2 remained in the right channel while each
of the others remained in the left.

Noise samples were then adjusted in overlay so that a repetitive
background noise common to both the left and right channels was
synchronized. Although there were other noises in the recordings,
the common noise, somewhat like that of a dishwasher in operation,
could be heard in both left and right stereo channels. The
offsets used were: -0.2 seconds for #2 overlaying #1; -0.4 seconds
for #2 overlaying #3; +0.7 seconds for #2 overlaying #4. The
offsets are defined as the offset of the zero for #2 relative to
the zero of the section to which it is being overlaid, with "zero"
being defined as the beginning times listed above for each audio
section.

The FFT filter "Mackie Mid Boost" from Syntrillium's CoolEdit 2000 was
applied so that the repetitive noise common to both channels could
be heard more clearly.

After trimming, the three overlays were each looped eight times for
ease of listening, then they were concatenated into a single file
with a 0.3 second silence between them.

The resulting concatenated file was then downsampled to CD quality,
then compressed into an MP3 file with the same settings as used
previously.

D) Two noise samples were extracted from the digitized version of the
cassette tape. These two samples correspond to #2 and #3 above
(see part C above), the only corresponding ones that are available
on the cassette tape recording:

After Engulf Audio processing, samples were extracted.

Overlaid with 0.3 seconds offset --- times not same for cassette
recording as for CD track due to difficulty of locating zero.

Trimmed to area of overlap only.

Dynamics processing:
flat 1.00 : 1 above -10 dB
cmp 2.99 : 1 below -10 dB
exp 15.3 : 1 below -96 dB

Filter FFT Mackie Mid Boost

Quick Filter:
hi: 187, 375, 750, 1500, 3000, 48,000 Hz sections of filter: -30
db; 6,500 and 16,000 Hz + 3.7 db
lo: 187, 1500, 3000, 6500, 16,000, 48,000 Hz sections of filter: -
30 db; 375 and 750 Hz + 3.7 db

Amplified: +6.0 db boost.

Created loops, then MP3 files:
high: looped eight times, then normalized, downsampled to CD
quality, compressed to MP3 at 256 KBits per second.
low: downsampled, looped eight times, compressed to MP3 (not
normalized) at 256 KBits per second.

MP3's used "High Quality" codecs as before.

E) An MP3 file was created from the purported conversation on the
audio cassette recording. This section begins shortly after the
fourth time that the 911 dispatcher says, "Patsy?" It was
processed with the following:

Normalized to 0db

Dynamics processing (to bring up low-level sounds):
flat 1.00 : 1 above -10 dB
cmp 2.99 : 1 below -10 dB
exp 15.3 : 1 below -96 dB

FFT Filter, bandpass (lessen hum):
220 Hz, 0%; 656 Hz, 100%; 2350 Hz, 100%; 8106 Hz, 0%
2048-point, Blackman-Harris windowing

Dynamics processing (to bring volume of keystrokes down):
cmp 3.00 : 1 above -30 dB
flat 1.00 : 1 below -30 dB

Amplify 400%

Engulf Audio from EXE Consulting, same conditions as for the tape
(above, part A).

© Copyright "Dave" on Jameson's Webbsleuths 2003. All rights reserved.

Dave concluded that they
are NOT voices, and that there is something too mechanical about them,
suggesting a mechanical origin.

http://www.jameson245.com/tape5.mp3
This is the "High-Pass loop"

http://www.jameson245.com/tape6.mp3
and the "low-pass loop"

(P.S. I would have called the "precise cadence", the "heart-beat" sound. Just want you to know what you are dealing with from a layman!):)

Not the smoking gun it was supposed to be, and while not the elimination of the RDI theory, it IS an indictment of the Boulder Police Department's misinvestigation. Absolutely mind boggling that anyone would try to make something of this. Was this pathetic grasping at straws or criminal misrepresentation?

(shaking my head sadly, frustrated)

At the moment, I am extremely busy and don't have the time to write a summary for those who got lost. To those who found it too hard to understand, I apologize for the length and use of technical terminology, but I wanted first to provide something that another technically oriented person could use to duplicate the results. This is the kind of work and report that Aerospace should have provided for BPD, then BPD should have gone to another facility and asked them to provide the same. If the results had matched and suggested conversation, THEN they could have grilled the Ramseys and considered leaking information to the press. I'm somewhat skeptical that BPD has either a report or enhanced recordings, but rather a trip report from Hickman. (Oh, but I guess they now do have a full report and enhanced recordings, don't they!)

I'm going to have to go off-line for a day or two. Perhaps in a few days I'll be "back in business."

I don not expect to hear back from them as far as what they think of the enhancements, but once again, the WebbSleuths grouphas contributed to the honest file on the Ramsey case.

Thanks for your support. It's not obvious from the report, but the most sophisticated program I used was actually written by me, using elegant mathematics developed by others long ago. Yes, I do know something about the subject. Thank you for noticing!

Apparently it's lost on some people on other forums, but the reason for using off-the-shelf programs as much as possible for the analysis is to enable others to repeat the analysis. This is a critical concern with experimental science in general. There is no off-the-shelf program analogous to one of mine, so I had to use that. It substantially increases the clarity.

Another point that seems to be lost on some people on other forums (judging from your description because I don't read the others) is that when one can do a simple analysis and prove that something isn't possible, it is NOT NECESSARY to do a more complete analysis. Anyone who thinks that what I've done isn't good enough to show that the alleged conversation isn't conversation doesn't understand what I've done. They don't really understand the problem and/or the technical issues involved.

The woman rolling around on the floor laughting her arse off probably belongs there.

Thanks for your support!

-------------------------------------

I discussed some of my work with Braveheart who is quite competent to understand what my work is and has been in the past, so I very much appreciate his endorsement.

Regarding computers in general (Braveheart knows this): All computers today (well, 99.9% of them) use what is called the von Neumann architecture (after a famous 20th century mathematician who didn't really invent it, but wrote a well-circulated, very influential memo about it). What this means is that as a practical matter, there is no difference between large computer systems and small computer systems, especially when it comes to number crunching --- except for speed. The actual hardware implementations can be quite different, and the speeds can be quite different, but one can perform any analysis on a Dell that can be done on a workstation in terms of the type of thing that is required for signal analysis. Anyone who says anything different doesn't know what they're talking about. The typical Dell systems sold today are far, far more capable than the engineering workstations I used to perform computational physics tasks on when I was working for a Fortune 500 company. There are special machines out there that are "parallelized," but this type of machine is gross overkill for the task at hand.

The task here was to analyze the alleged conversation --- not all conversation, the alleged conversation. I found it. I enhanced it and showed that the allegations that these noises are conversation are false. I challenge those who believe otherwise to enhance the conversations, to write up their results so that others can repeat their analysis, and to post MP3 files so we can listen to them. Anyone who cannot do that should shut up. Anyone who would criticize my analysis on the basis of hardware and software used without addressing any technical issues is proving themselves incompetent to discuss the matter and should also shut up. It's difficult, not to mention a waste of valuable time, to say in words just how idiotic such criticism is.

-------------------------------------

On edit: I'm not specifically endorsing Dell; I've never owned one, and I built my own system. I use that term because I think a lot of people know the name.

And the answer is--the entire affair was a figment of an over-active imagination.

Rainsong

They also claim what was erased is recoverable and that part of those 'missing words' were not erased at all. Those words supposedly missed by the erasure are "Help me Jesus, help me Jesus," "What did..."

They mention something called q notch technology.

What they don't get is we didn't hear the CD--which was made FROM the tape. What we heard was the tape.

Rainsong

the claim is the tape from which the CD was made shows erasure.

No cite for the above information was posted.

Rainsong

I don't believe that Aerospace Corporation, if they did anything at all, did anything different than what I did except to agree with Detective Hickman. They probably did some noise reduction and some expansion and/or compression with gain. That's all that needs to be done to bring out the alleged conversation. Once you've done that, you can filter it and determine that there is too much wrong with it to be human speech. You can also compare different portions of the tape and hear that there is some repetitive noise. Unfortunately, it appears that some people assumed that this was speech and concentrated on what they thought was being said rather than on trying to determine whether or not this was even speech at all. In other words, based on the stories that have been circulated, it appears that no skepticism was applied to the assumption that these noises were conversation.

-------------------------------------

A short note on the CD: That CD is of VERY poor quality. I suggested in my report that the DA's office should have those done over again from the evidence tape.

And on "Q Notch Technology." Sounds pretty spiffy, doesn't it? This is a filter. High-Q or variable-Q notch filter. They may have swept the value of Q or something like that, but it's just a variation of what I did with filtering and with a fancy name. What I would be concerned about is that they may have simply varied Q until they distorted the signal enough to make it sound like whatever they wanted it to sound like RATHER than use the filter to try and exclude conversation. (If you fail to exclude conversation, then you must include it as a possibility.) It's probably possible to use high-Q filters to CONSTRUCT conversation from a signal with a lot of noise, such as that noisy CD. If the signal is noisy enough, you can construct whatever you want. If they'll write up what they did, including desciptions of any specialized algorithms, I'll run the same tests.

Spade and Tricia are blowing a lot of smoke on another forum. If they have an enhancement with those conversations on them, they should share the enhancements with LE and the public - include the names of the "experts" who did the enhancements - and let the chips fall where they may.

(Personally I suggest you don't hold your breath. No one is going to take credit for something that doesn't exist - - or be willing to take credit for what they may have doctored for some BORG friends.)

The tapes have been out there for months now - - they show a frantic mother calling for help - nothing more.

I am done defending the Ramseys - they don't need defending - the Ramseys were thoroughly investigated and nothing links them to this crime, the weight of the evidence points to an intruder...

Let's do what we can to get this case solved. Discussing the Ramseys as suspects at this point - - accusing or defending them - - is a waste of time. I won't do it and I suggest the members consider following my lead.

There is a lot of evidence out there - - lots of theories and discussions there may prompt tips that could expose the killer - - I hope to see more of those discussions - - let the BORG wallow in their own mud.

"Two labs working with the 911 tape/cd reported progress in the past few days."

So he is saying they are enhancing the tape now ...

what a jerk.

Spade is saying someone in LE who actually listened to the original tape 50+ times is part of that group.... if that is true, why doesn't that person go public and take responsibility for what he is doing - - and share the tapes so we all can see.

And if the whole thing is BS, let them be responsible for that as well.

~~~~~~~~~~

1000 sparks asked, "Is this the 1st time this tape has been enhanced?"

The answer is no.

And I am asking myself if Spade is talking about enhancing the tape or editing it to add what really isn't there.

In the end, the 911 tape is not going to tell us who killed JonBenét - but it could help point out who in the investigation was willing to derail it.

I don't suppose that "Spade" provided the name of the so-called "labs," did he/she? It appears that you're probably thinking the same thing I am: Two Borg posters are playing around with the recordings, and they may just give up and resort to some kind of fraud. Hopefully not, but if they do, it will probably be obvious. They probably also would not provide the detailed steps of the processing that they did, knowing that nobody else would be able to reproduce their results. This is why I say that anyone who claims any results of other than those already published needs to provide BOTH audio files and a detailed report of exactly what steps they took to produce those results so that others can produce exactly the same results. Anything less than that should not be accepted by anyone.

They really should just stop wasting their time. Whatever is on there isn't going to convict anyone anyway.

What he has done is to share the tape we have all heard - told his followers to listen to the noise at the end and HEAR IT say "Help me, Jesus."

These people want to hear it so they do - - and they are posting that the sound is there - - and I really have to laugh because before Spade and Tricia put up the tape and pushed (you will be assimilated, resistance is futile - we heard this on TV long ago and Burke was on it then but just forget that because now we heard only Patsy.... you will hear Patsy, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile.), they didn't hear it either. They read our threads and weresilent. tricia posted that she had a copy of the tape and nothing was there - - took some nerve to come back and say she did hear it, heard it all along, had to lie to the posters so we wouldn't know. (BORG logic - don't try to figure it out.)

I am waiting to see what Spade will come up with next. I am sure Lin will also be interested - - Mary Keenan may be as well, oh yeah.

I keep checking this thread to see if any new developments show up here. It's been over two weeks now since "progress" was made by others in enhancing the tape, whatever that means. Wasn't that tape first released back in July of this year? At several hundred dollars an hour for use of the lab, the bill must be enormous! Don't they have even one WORD that is indisputably Patsy speaking which we can clearly hear by now? What about "help" or "Jesus?"

A lot of people may not know this, but the best CD-R's have a guaranteed data-retention lifetime of only about 100 years, so they might want to speed things up a little.

>I keep checking this thread to see if any new developments
>show up here. It's been over two weeks now since "progress"
>was made by others in enhancing the tape, whatever that
>means. Wasn't that tape first released back in July of this
>year? At several hundred dollars an hour for use of the
>lab, the bill must be enormous! Don't they have even one
>WORD that is indisputably Patsy speaking which we can
>clearly hear by now? What about "help" or "Jesus?"

>A lot of people may not know this, but the best CD-R's have
>a guaranteed data-retention lifetime of only about 100
>years, so they might want to speed things up a little.

Oh, that is too funny. I really wonder how *pade is going to get himself out of this one. He has probably grown weary of asking the labs, "What DID you find?"

When they do, I wouls also want the name of the lab who is taking credit for that tape.

I don't see that happening because lawsuits would start flying.

The tapes can be heard - the voices simply are not there.

CBS didn't hear the voices - they disagreed with what was on the CD made from the tape but heard nothing on the tape...

The FBI, CBI and Secret Service didn't hear voices...

only the BORG.

(But some of them hear me yammering at them half the time too - - absolutely delusional.)

She says now that SHE has hired a lab to test the 911 tape - apparently she is no longer willing to accept Spade's word as gospel.

According to that lab, Patsy Ramsey says at the very beginning after the operator answers, but before she speaks, "God. Hon we need 'em."

I have never heard that but the fact is I don't think Thomas or anyone else tried to sort that out. Davedidn't hear it, though - I would ask him to try again - but Ican tell you I don't hear it but if it was there in the background, it wouldn't surprise me or point toward the Ramseys as guilty of anything.

Then Tricia shared what she called, "...the bad news."

She wrote:

The tape the lab received was an un-opened copy from the D.A.'s office. According to the lab trying to decipher the end of this copy of a copy of a copy is trying to see through mayonnaise. However they are going to work on it this weekend.

I think this is pretty revealing. The lab said they couldn't see anything up to now - and I believe they won't be able to tomorrow - - there's nothing there.

NOW we have "God. Hon, we need 'em." at the front end of the tape???

Why does this remind me of when my sons were first dating girls and the girls always had to have a running soap opera going on in their lives? Left my poor boys in a dither trying to figure 'em out.

Tricia went off (in January, I think) and hired her own lab (due to legitimate criticisms from posters like Cheekysodd), but her mission was a little different. She wasn't looking for redaction (although that would be okay); she was looking for "hidden" conversation/voices - anywhere - front end of tape or back end of tape. Her "lab guy" is busy with "court cases", but will fit it in somewhere (he's been paid up front). According to Tricia, her "lab guy's" preliminary report (end of January) was that he can hear a female voice saying "Help me, Jesus" (but, of course, cannot identify it as Patsy's voice - voice identification is a whole other matter).

I don't think Patsy has ever denied (or confirmed) that she may have said "Help me, Jesus", but to believe that 'lament' is on the tape/cd requires believing the phone was not hung up. Whether she did or did not is completely irrelevant, however, isn't it?

I think it is important that WHOEVER is looking at doing this analysis has the cassette tape and the cd since the "noise" at the beginning and end of the cd version sound similar and is NOT on the cassette tape at all. What is on the original evidence tape may need comparing as well -

From Dave's report:

#1 refers to audio section prior to the 911 operator's connection to Patsy's call
#2 refers to audio section after the 4th "Patsy"
#3 refers to audio section alleged to be "What DID you find" - the last audible 'assumed' key press
#4 containing similar noise to section #2 is contained only on the CD track and follows a section of buzzing which resembles that of an amplified ground loop where the ground loop is close to electrical equipment such as a computer. Section #4 also sounds like #1 which is immediately prior to the connection being made to the Ramsey phone line.

This last audio section lasts about seven seconds and is somewhat of a mystery. It is not contained on the cassette tape at all, and it appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the call from Patsy.
The intervening buzzing sound between the audio sections #3 and #4 is very similar to the buzzing sound at the very beginning of the CD track, before audio section #1 starts. During both of these buzzing sounds, there is no audible input whatsoever, that is no discernible background noise such as from an open microphone or anything else such as that. This intervening buzzing sound is the strongest evidence that audio section #4 has nothing to do with Patsy's call. It is fortuitous, however, that it appears to have the same type of noise as does the recording of Patsy's call, as if it were from
the same original recording system, perhaps something like a hangup call that came in soon after Patsy's call.

The cassette recording was judged to be probably the most faithful rendition of the master recording (evidence tape), even though we did not have access to this master. We judge this because of the excessive amount of extra noise on the CD track. With respect to the digitized audio cassette recording , it was possible to overlay only audio sections #2 and #3 because sections #1 and #4 were not present on the audio tape. Nevertheless, it was possible to find a particular offset time, the same as for the CD track, which seemed to join these sections together. Some of the noise was very similar in both channels. In particular, the cadence of the two was suspiciously similar.
In particular, the section that precedes the 911 dispatcher's answering of the 911 call (#1) cannot possibly contain speech by the
Ramseys, yet this early background noise is indistinguishable from the noise that is part of purported conversation between the Ramseys (#2). One can easily fool oneself into believing that there is
conversation, but a more careful examination of the recording, complete with comparisons of one section of the recording to another by superposing them together in separate stereo channels, allows
one to hear that the background noise is repeated at various times throughout the recording.
... one may find that certain noises that are on the audio cassette and especially on the CD track not to be present on the evidence tape.