On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:58:44 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:58:17 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:35:25 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:03:59 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:39:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , dump-on-
says...


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt?

In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out
an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to
discriminate between two people.

What percentage of match is Zimmerman?

No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read
the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that
would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I
read the article).

You're joking, right?

Well, OK, so I left out a 'not'.

Harry is the genius around here. Just ask him.

OMFG, with that logic, I'm sure you believe that a 60% chance of rain
means we didn't get 40% of what we could have.

This might explain your logic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk

I'm surprised one of your intellectual prowess would have to resort to YouTube. Please, explain how
you interpret the comments. I am definitely not one who can't admit an error!

From the OP: "The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice.
It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match
with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent."

Why don't we compare this to Martin's voice and see what that match
is? Better yet, why didn't he compare the sound to Martin, at all? To
me, that clearly shows bias.

Since the examination didn't come up with a strong positive, why not
compare the weak positives to each other?

A 48% match of Zimmerman to Zimmerman is useless information. A 98%
match would be damning. Since you can't prove a negative, the 52%
means nothing.


The weak positive (48%) is what the software gave as a match to Zimmerman's voice. The analyst would
have expected at least a 90% match if the voice were, in fact, Zimmerman's. The conclusion was that
the weak positive proves the voice is not Zimmerman's.

He didn't analyze the recording compared to Martin's voice because he didn't have a recording of
Martin's voice to compare to.

To me, the weak positive (48%) also leaves a weak negative (52%).

I agree with your last sentence. That's why I can't understand the liberals saying this proves that
Zimmerman did not call for help.

It proves nothing.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:58:44 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:58:17 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:35:25 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:03:59 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:39:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , dump-on-
says...


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt?

In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out
an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to
discriminate between two people.

What percentage of match is Zimmerman?

No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read
the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that
would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I
read the article).

You're joking, right?

Well, OK, so I left out a 'not'.

Harry is the genius around here. Just ask him.

OMFG, with that logic, I'm sure you believe that a 60% chance of rain
means we didn't get 40% of what we could have.

This might explain your logic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk

I'm surprised one of your intellectual prowess would have to resort to YouTube. Please, explain how
you interpret the comments. I am definitely not one who can't admit an error!

From the OP: "The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice.
It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match
with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent."

Why don't we compare this to Martin's voice and see what that match
is? Better yet, why didn't he compare the sound to Martin, at all? To
me, that clearly shows bias.

Since the examination didn't come up with a strong positive, why not
compare the weak positives to each other?

A 48% match of Zimmerman to Zimmerman is useless information. A 98%
match would be damning. Since you can't prove a negative, the 52%
means nothing.


The weak positive (48%) is what the software gave as a match to Zimmerman's voice. The analyst would
have expected at least a 90% match if the voice were, in fact, Zimmerman's. The conclusion was that
the weak positive proves the voice is not Zimmerman's.

Yeah, so someone else killed Martin even though Zimmerman admits to it,
right?

He didn't analyze the recording compared to Martin's voice because he didn't have a recording of
Martin's voice to compare to.

More ****ty investigation.

To me, the weak positive (48%) also leaves a weak negative (52%).

I agree with your last sentence. That's why I can't understand the liberals saying this proves that
Zimmerman did not call for help.

It proves nothing.

Please show how the weak positive "proves" the voice is not Zimmerman's.