It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michael Brown Shooting: Audio Allegedly Captures Gunshots

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: spacedog1973

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: spacedog1973

See that is where this recording fails. (1)There was an initial shot inside the car, even reported by Dorian Johnson. What I find almost humorous about this clip is that there is NO reaction from the guy recording....10 shots fired outside your window and you just keep sweet talking your honey on the screen????

(2)And this audio has not been proven to even be of the incident. (3) If shots were fired close enough for your computer microphone to record them behind closed doors then you are REALLY close to the action. No reaction from this guy tells me one of 4 things: 1, it happens all the time and he is used to it so he didn't react, 2, he added the shots to the recording later, or 3, the shots occurred on the other end of the line near whomever he was talking to, or 4, he had a movie playing in the background that had this succession of shots fired so he would not react because he knew it was a movie.


(1)According to the audio, there was no shot inside the car. We have to work with the information available.
The guy was on skype or another online service, using headphones. Its not strange that he didn't hear during a conversation.
(2)We have to accept (some reluctantly), that these witnesses come from the investigation. They have already been vetteded and interviewed long before CNN talk to them.
(3) Shots are high pitched sounds and can be easily enhanced which I suspect has been done for TV.

The distrust of information has no basis.


According to the audio? So this guy just happened to hit record only for the portion of audio that was released in the clip we heard with shots fired? And sorry, but I don't see where it says he had head phones on either. Skype doesn't have a recording feature, so try another one. Sure shots can be enhanced so we can hear them, I guess this guy decided to enhance his audio to hear his sweet talk a little better but happened to realize he caught the gunshots in there too?

I would bet this is vetted in a couple days as complete BS that was either hoaxed so they could put something on Wilson to get him to be the martyr in this, or it was on a movie the guy had playing in the background.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: BerenstEiner
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I hear gun shots every night in my neighborhood. We don't even flinch any
more, we are so used to it.

That whole town is used to it too.


So you wouldn't flinch or even stop your conversation to look out the window if you heard a volley of 10 shots fired close enough for your computer microphone to record them? Not even take cover knowing they were that close?


Nope. In a far worse neighbor hood a guy died right in front of my house after a drive by. Didn't even know until the body van came to pick him up.

When you live in a place like that long enough, you become numb to all that.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: BerenstEiner

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: BerenstEiner
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I hear gun shots every night in my neighborhood. We don't even flinch any
more, we are so used to it.

That whole town is used to it too.


So you wouldn't flinch or even stop your conversation to look out the window if you heard a volley of 10 shots fired close enough for your computer microphone to record them? Not even take cover knowing they were that close?


Nope. In a far worse neighbor hood a guy died right in front of my house after a drive by. Didn't even know until the body van came to pick him up.

When you live in a place like that long enough, you become numb to all that.



I now live in a nice neighborhood. But this is Albuquerque, and we all hear them. But our first thought most of the time is "Who did the police kill now?"



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: BerenstEiner

Well that would be a FAR cry from the wonderful community the media is portraying Ferguson to be.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: spacedog1973

It's amazing you concluded (as the nail in the coffin) what happened from the supposed audio from the case. So, you are positive that the shot on the top of the head occurred as Brown was falling as oppposed to charging the officer with his head down? (2) Wait, if all the witness statements agreed, wouldn't the autopsy have shown some shots in the back? Some witnesses claimed he was shot in the back. (3) Since you are an audio forensics expert you must be able to tell if JFK's headshot came from the book depository. Please, I want to know.


You need to calm down. Do you have a horse in this race?

There are no witnesses who say Brown charged the Cop. It seems reasonable to assume they are telling the truth.
This means that Brown was falling. Shots to the head was made at a downward angle. Impossible if Brown was standing.
To suggest Brown was charging the cop means a number of things;

1) Brown's head was in the position of an olympic sprinter coming out of the blocks, whilst sustaining shots to his arms. the fatal shots were to the head, which means that he maintained this position whilst being shot. This does not even tackle the illogic of first running away from shots, to deciding in a matter of seconds, to reverse the stratergy.

2) Witnesses saw the cop shooting brown as he ran. They assumed he was hit in the back. This is a perfectly logical assumtpion given that Brown stopped and turned. The Autopsy further suggests the possibliy that he was actually shot from behind. This is consistent with witness testimony.

3) Debate by all means, but leave out the childishness.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Double post



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Mr. Johnson saying a shot was fired in the vehicle. What about 1 minute of audio before the shots and after?

You are going base fact of the complete incident on a couple of seconds of ripped out audio.


I'm going on the fact that they released this audio as is. (if) they released this audio withou an initial shot, then that would be something that would expose CNN as releasing tampered information. They have no reason to bring their organisation into disrepute over this incident. I believe any audio recorded prior to the shots was not released due to the sensitive nature of the conversation that could be heard. Thats all.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
You are mighty trusting of the world. You will learn someday, well, maybe.

CNN can be dealing only with what they were given.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: spacedog1973

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: spacedog1973

See that is where this recording fails. (1)There was an initial shot inside the car, even reported by Dorian Johnson. What I find almost humorous about this clip is that there is NO reaction from the guy recording....10 shots fired outside your window and you just keep sweet talking your honey on the screen????

(2)And this audio has not been proven to even be of the incident. (3) If shots were fired close enough for your computer microphone to record them behind closed doors then you are REALLY close to the action. No reaction from this guy tells me one of 4 things: 1, it happens all the time and he is used to it so he didn't react, 2, he added the shots to the recording later, or 3, the shots occurred on the other end of the line near whomever he was talking to, or 4, he had a movie playing in the background that had this succession of shots fired so he would not react because he knew it was a movie.


(1)According to the audio, there was no shot inside the car. We have to work with the information available.
The guy was on skype or another online service, using headphones. Its not strange that he didn't hear during a conversation.
(2)We have to accept (some reluctantly), that these witnesses come from the investigation. They have already been vetteded and interviewed long before CNN talk to them.
(3) Shots are high pitched sounds and can be easily enhanced which I suspect has been done for TV.

The distrust of information has no basis.


According to the audio? (1) So this guy just happened to hit record only for the portion of audio that was released in the clip we heard with shots fired? And sorry, but I don't see where it says he had head phones on either. (2) Skype doesn't have a recording feature, so try another one. Sure shots can be enhanced so we can hear them, (3)I guess this guy decided to enhance his audio to hear his sweet talk a little better but happened to realize he caught the gunshots in there too?

(4)I would bet this is vetted in a couple days as complete BS that was either hoaxed so they could put something on Wilson to get him to be the martyr in this, or it was on a movie the guy had playing in the background.



(1) I don't think he hit record at the start of the shots. Its just where CNN decided to start and where the shots started.
(2) I said it was skype or another online chat service. Either way, Skype has a number of addons which can be used, including record.
(3) I don't understand what you are talking about. CNN are the ones who most likely enhanced the audio so viewers can hear the shots. This takes about 5 seconds on any basic audio equipment.
(4) I think the BS witnesses are now finished. Its unlikely anything after the 'Josie' call and the 'Fractured Eye socket' will get a pass before being aired unless it has already been vetted.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
You are mighty trusting of the world. You will learn someday, well, maybe.

CNN can be dealing only with what they were given.


Yeah, I will become one day as wise as you.

CNN are only using what they are given, true. Thats why its pointless assuming there is something else. Anyalise the data as is, or not. But don't assume there is more or something else, until that something else is available. I suspect it won't be. Thats probably my unworldliness talking.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: spacedog1973

You really don't understand the world we live in do you. Glad you got to the whole truth with 3 seconds of anonymous audio.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: spacedog1973

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: spacedog1973

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: spacedog1973

See that is where this recording fails. (1)There was an initial shot inside the car, even reported by Dorian Johnson. What I find almost humorous about this clip is that there is NO reaction from the guy recording....10 shots fired outside your window and you just keep sweet talking your honey on the screen????

(2)And this audio has not been proven to even be of the incident. (3) If shots were fired close enough for your computer microphone to record them behind closed doors then you are REALLY close to the action. No reaction from this guy tells me one of 4 things: 1, it happens all the time and he is used to it so he didn't react, 2, he added the shots to the recording later, or 3, the shots occurred on the other end of the line near whomever he was talking to, or 4, he had a movie playing in the background that had this succession of shots fired so he would not react because he knew it was a movie.


(1)According to the audio, there was no shot inside the car. We have to work with the information available.
The guy was on skype or another online service, using headphones. Its not strange that he didn't hear during a conversation.
(2)We have to accept (some reluctantly), that these witnesses come from the investigation. They have already been vetteded and interviewed long before CNN talk to them.
(3) Shots are high pitched sounds and can be easily enhanced which I suspect has been done for TV.

The distrust of information has no basis.


According to the audio? (1) So this guy just happened to hit record only for the portion of audio that was released in the clip we heard with shots fired? And sorry, but I don't see where it says he had head phones on either. (2) Skype doesn't have a recording feature, so try another one. Sure shots can be enhanced so we can hear them, (3)I guess this guy decided to enhance his audio to hear his sweet talk a little better but happened to realize he caught the gunshots in there too?

(4)I would bet this is vetted in a couple days as complete BS that was either hoaxed so they could put something on Wilson to get him to be the martyr in this, or it was on a movie the guy had playing in the background.



(1) I don't think he hit record at the start of the shots. Its just where CNN decided to start and where the shots started.
(2) I said it was skype or another online chat service. Either way, Skype has a number of addons which can be used, including record.
(3) I don't understand what you are talking about. CNN are the ones who most likely enhanced the audio so viewers can hear the shots. This takes about 5 seconds on any basic audio equipment.
(4) I think the BS witnesses are now finished. Its unlikely anything after the 'Josie' call and the 'Fractured Eye socket' will get a pass before being aired unless it has already been vetted.


You said you could hear the shots after it was audio enhanced....that would mean that the person who sent the audio in himself would have had to enhance it in order to know there were shots there.

See, the story states this:



The man, who asked that his identity not be revealed, lives near the site of the shooting and was close enough to have heard the gunshots, his attorney said.

He was speaking to a friend on a video chat service and happened to be recording the conversation at the same time Brown was shot, Blumenthal said.

The attorney said she learned of the man's recording late last week from a mutual friend.
"I had to get his consent before I could reach out to the FBI," Blumenthal said.

CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of the tape and has asked the FBI for confirmation of their interview with the man who made the recording.


So, he was close enough to have heard the shooting, yet only knew about it after the audio was enhanced on his recording, his recording is conveniently only long enough to capture 10 shots, it was only learned about late last week, so he was just sitting on it for fun for a couple weeks, and CNN can't verify the authenticity.

Yep, that is about all I need to hear on this one. Guy probably spliced a sound bite into a recording to see if he could sway the media to believe that it was not a clean shooting. The police chief even states that a shot was fired inside the car. If that is the case then there is absolutely nothing on an audio recording that would keep them from releasing that segment as well, unless of course it is ALL BS.....which I have a feeling this will turn out to be.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: spacedog1973

originally posted by: UnBreakable

a reply to: spacedog1973



It's amazing you concluded (as the nail in the coffin) what happened from the supposed audio from the case. So, you are positive that the shot on the top of the head occurred as Brown was falling as oppposed to charging the officer with his head down? (2) Wait, if all the witness statements agreed, wouldn't the autopsy have shown some shots in the back? Some witnesses claimed he was shot in the back. (3) Since you are an audio forensics expert you must be able to tell if JFK's headshot came from the book depository. Please, I want to know.




You need to calm down. Do you have a horse in this race?



There are no witnesses who say Brown charged the Cop. It seems reasonable to assume they are telling the truth.

This means that Brown was falling. Shots to the head was made at a downward angle. Impossible if Brown was standing.

To suggest Brown was charging the cop means a number of things;






Hey Skippy, I don't need to calm down, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not proclaiming to know what went down as you obviously do.
No witnesses who say Brown charged the cop? Yes there are, we don't know publicly yet. Let's wait until all the witnesses go before the grand jury,


"Instead of Brown being fired on while his hands were raised in surrender, the witness claims that Brown was moving towards the officer when he was shot.
While this version of events does not match most of the eyewitness accounts, it does seem to tally up in a small part with the account of what occurred given by a friend of Wilson".



www.dailymail.co.uk... d-Officer-Darren-Wilson.html#ixzz3BVk4ireZ



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
If that audio is accurate, then officer Wilson is screwed.

I'm not sure how he would justify a pause in shooting and then continue to finish him off.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: spacedog1973

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: spacedog1973

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: spacedog1973

See that is where this recording fails. (1)There was an initial shot inside the car, even reported by Dorian Johnson. What I find almost humorous about this clip is that there is NO reaction from the guy recording....10 shots fired outside your window and you just keep sweet talking your honey on the screen????

(2)And this audio has not been proven to even be of the incident. (3) If shots were fired close enough for your computer microphone to record them behind closed doors then you are REALLY close to the action. No reaction from this guy tells me one of 4 things: 1, it happens all the time and he is used to it so he didn't react, 2, he added the shots to the recording later, or 3, the shots occurred on the other end of the line near whomever he was talking to, or 4, he had a movie playing in the background that had this succession of shots fired so he would not react because he knew it was a movie.


(1)According to the audio, there was no shot inside the car. We have to work with the information available.
The guy was on skype or another online service, using headphones. Its not strange that he didn't hear during a conversation.
(2)We have to accept (some reluctantly), that these witnesses come from the investigation. They have already been vetteded and interviewed long before CNN talk to them.
(3) Shots are high pitched sounds and can be easily enhanced which I suspect has been done for TV.

The distrust of information has no basis.


According to the audio? (1) So this guy just happened to hit record only for the portion of audio that was released in the clip we heard with shots fired? And sorry, but I don't see where it says he had head phones on either. (2) Skype doesn't have a recording feature, so try another one. Sure shots can be enhanced so we can hear them, (3)I guess this guy decided to enhance his audio to hear his sweet talk a little better but happened to realize he caught the gunshots in there too?

(4)I would bet this is vetted in a couple days as complete BS that was either hoaxed so they could put something on Wilson to get him to be the martyr in this, or it was on a movie the guy had playing in the background.



(1) I don't think he hit record at the start of the shots. Its just where CNN decided to start and where the shots started.
(2) I said it was skype or another online chat service. Either way, Skype has a number of addons which can be used, including record.
(3) I don't understand what you are talking about. CNN are the ones who most likely enhanced the audio so viewers can hear the shots. This takes about 5 seconds on any basic audio equipment.
(4) I think the BS witnesses are now finished. Its unlikely anything after the 'Josie' call and the 'Fractured Eye socket' will get a pass before being aired unless it has already been vetted.


(1)You said you could hear the shots after it was audio enhanced....that would mean that the person who sent the audio in himself would have had to enhance it in order to know there were shots there.

See, the story states this:



The man, who asked that his identity not be revealed, lives near the site of the shooting and was close enough to have heard the gunshots, his attorney said.

He was speaking to a friend on a video chat service and happened to be recording the conversation at the same time Brown was shot, Blumenthal said.

The attorney said she learned of the man's recording late last week from a mutual friend.
"I had to get his consent before I could reach out to the FBI," Blumenthal said.

CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of the tape and has asked the FBI for confirmation of their interview with the man who made the recording.


(2) So, he was close enough to have heard the shooting, yet only knew about it after the audio was enhanced on his recording, (3) his recording is conveniently only long enough to capture 10 shots, (4) it was only learned about late last week, so he was just sitting on it for fun for a couple weeks, and CNN can't verify the authenticity.

Yep, that is about all I need to hear on this one. (5) Guy probably spliced a sound bite into a recording to see if he could sway the media to believe that it was not a clean shooting. (6) The police chief even states that a shot was fired inside the car. If that is the case then there is absolutely nothing on an audio recording that would keep them from releasing that segment as well, unless of course it is ALL BS.....which I have a feeling this will turn out to be.


(1) That doesn't mean that at all. It means that the audio was probably enhanced. Enhanced means to make it more clear to hear. It doesn't mean that it can't be heard at all.

(2) Again, this does not imply that to be the case at all. He was close enough for his audio to pick up the shooting, which he most likely heard on playback.

(3) His recording is not long enough to hear the shots (only). This is the recording that has been shared, a portion of it. Unless you have evidence the recording is only a few seconds long in total please share it.

(4) I don't think that this means anything at all. He made a recording. Didn't listen to it straight away or identify the shots in the recording immediatley. This doesn't mean anything.

(5) The guy (according to his attorney) has gone to the FBI with the tape and has an attorney speaking on his behalf. You have to make a decision; is this worth anything either financially or otherwise in making up a tape? What benefits can be gained from doing so.

(6) The police chief is still lucky to be a police chief at this stage. There is evidence that he has been managing a corrupt force for some time. (this isn't any different from most police chiefs who statistically and historically only on very rare occasions find any wrong doing in a shooting by a cop. This is an insitutional thing and police chiefs are basically reading from a script as far as that is concerned) He has been auto covering for his officer from the get go, before any eveidence was in.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: spacedog1973

originally posted by: UnBreakable

a reply to: spacedog1973



It's amazing you concluded (as the nail in the coffin) what happened from the supposed audio from the case. So, you are positive that the shot on the top of the head occurred as Brown was falling as oppposed to charging the officer with his head down? (2) Wait, if all the witness statements agreed, wouldn't the autopsy have shown some shots in the back? Some witnesses claimed he was shot in the back. (3) Since you are an audio forensics expert you must be able to tell if JFK's headshot came from the book depository. Please, I want to know.




You need to calm down. Do you have a horse in this race?



There are no witnesses who say Brown charged the Cop. It seems reasonable to assume they are telling the truth.

This means that Brown was falling. Shots to the head was made at a downward angle. Impossible if Brown was standing.

To suggest Brown was charging the cop means a number of things;






Hey Skippy, I don't need to calm down, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not proclaiming to know what went down as you obviously do.
No witnesses who say Brown charged the cop? Yes there are, we don't know publicly yet. Let's wait until all the witnesses go before the grand jury,


"Instead of Brown being fired on while his hands were raised in surrender, the witness claims that Brown was moving towards the officer when he was shot.
While this version of events does not match most of the eyewitness accounts, it does seem to tally up in a small part with the account of what occurred given by a friend of Wilson".



www.dailymail.co.uk... d-Officer-Darren-Wilson.html#ixzz3BVk4ireZ



This is not a witness. Do you know what a witness is? Its someone who provide evidence to the Court in the case of a trial. Its not a voice heard on a phone cam video which indicates that 'someone' was running toward someone else.

If you can't calm down, take a nap.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: spacedog1973

originally posted by: UnBreakable


originally posted by: spacedog1973


originally posted by: UnBreakable



a reply to: spacedog1973







It's amazing you concluded (as the nail in the coffin) what happened from the supposed audio from the case. So, you are positive that the shot on the top of the head occurred as Brown was falling as oppposed to charging the officer with his head down? (2) Wait, if all the witness statements agreed, wouldn't the autopsy have shown some shots in the back? Some witnesses claimed he was shot in the back. (3) Since you are an audio forensics expert you must be able to tell if JFK's headshot came from the book depository. Please, I want to know.








You need to calm down. Do you have a horse in this race?







There are no witnesses who say Brown charged the Cop. It seems reasonable to assume they are telling the truth.



This means that Brown was falling. Shots to the head was made at a downward angle. Impossible if Brown was standing.



To suggest Brown was charging the cop means a number of things;













Hey Skippy, I don't need to calm down, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not proclaiming to know what went down as you obviously do.

No witnesses who say Brown charged the cop? Yes there are, we don't know publicly yet. Let's wait until all the witnesses go before the grand jury,





"Instead of Brown being fired on while his hands were raised in surrender, the witness claims that Brown was moving towards the officer when he was shot.

While this version of events does not match most of the eyewitness accounts, it does seem to tally up in a small part with the account of what occurred given by a friend of Wilson".







www.dailymail.co.uk... d-Officer-Darren-Wilson.html#ixzz3BVk4ireZ







This is not a witness. Do you know what a witness is? Its someone who provide evidence to the Court in the case of a trial. Its not a voice heard on a phone cam video which indicates that 'someone' was running toward someone else.



If you can't calm down, take a nap.

You seem to be slow on the uptake, so I'll repeat it. "Let's wait until all the witnesses go before the grand jury". So you're sure you have the complete witness list from the grand jury (as you would say, 'court')?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
So let me get this straight, you guys that want to discount a full color video of Brown robbing a store, even if you want to say he paid for the items, he committed assault. No ifs ands or buts..

Then we have a video of a bystander and a person near by gives their story of what happened, including that Brown did rush the cop. I wont deny this one is pretty iffy, but at least we know its there and at the correct time...

Yet you take a totally unknown very short clip of a guy tryin to sweet talk a lady friend on skype, that we have no clue of where it was, when it was etc. With some "gunshots" in the background and its the nail in the coffin of the cop??

You guys are getting pretty desperate for sure. As far as Im concerned, even if its the real shots being fired, it still can go with the cop doing what he had to. pop pop pop pop pop, pause stop dont do it Brown...pop pop pop pop ....you see how easy that was with no other info??

So far I do not see much at all going for Brown and against the cop, but maybe both sides still are holding the aces till the end.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

So Brown looked up after being shot in the top of his head and then was shot in the eye or he dropped his and charged Wilson after he was shot in the eye?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: UnBreakable

So Brown looked up after being shot in the top of his head and then was shot in the eye or he dropped his and charged Wilson after he was shot in the eye?


The "eye" may have been the 2nd to the last shot.




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join