Soxxy85

211 posts

Soxxy85 banner
Soxxy85

Soxxy85

@Soxxy85

Nunya Katılım Şubat 2017
106 Takip Edilen37 Takipçiler
Soxxy85
Soxxy85@Soxxy85·
@AntiWokeMemes No, religion and race are 2 different things. Can you spell illiterate?
English
0
0
0
1
Anti Woke Memes
Anti Woke Memes@AntiWokeMemes·
Be completely honest... What do you think about this?
Anti Woke Memes tweet media
English
13K
289
1.4K
261K
Jon Bray
Jon Bray@jonaaronbray·
I always miss details on my first pass over videos. @RealCandaceO rear tent video had some details that are hard to explain away. Just like @ckllr801 video, the rear tent angle captures faint grey gas escaping from underneath the shirt collar. A frame before the necklace is blown up and over his head and shrapnel is sent across his chest the gas is seen escaping. The necklace trajectory and the gas can't be explained by a rifle impact. We are dealing with a high energy event that originated from underneath Charlie's shirt, nothing else can explain the phenomenon we witnessed. The gas is escaping to the same side that the circuit board and battery later travel. The first expanding gas fractures the RØDE case and later sends the shrapnel across his chest into his neck and shirt collar.
English
54
203
994
36K
Ecological Criminal Report
Ecological Criminal Report@EcologicalCrime·
Gotcha you must still be in primary school so I’ll retract the question and you can try again when your balls drop. I’ll leave you to glaze your fellow Essex boi and try to explain whatever the fuck hes on about when hes not sucking up to Gary, MidGray, or whoever it is these days 😂
English
1
0
1
22
Jordan Henshaw
Jordan Henshaw@jordanhenshawhq·
@Freqazoid26 @ZebBoykin @ksanders68 TDOA is a well-known and well-established method for forensic acoustic analysis. However, it relies on time-synchronized microphones. It also relies on differentiating the supersonic crack from the muzzle blast. Audio Freq’s method for time-synchronizing unlinked microphones is not established. I examined his report on his method and found it to be highly erroneous. It depends on visual indicators that cannot reliably indicate a time of impact to a useful degree of precision. Furthermore, his method of using time difference of arrival between a phone’s left and right microphone is fully his own invention and does not appear to be rooted in any understanding of the phone’s audio processing algorithms. These algorithms are known to introduce significant unexpected anomalies between left and right microphones. Finally, Audio Freq’s echo analysis method is also not based on any existing method. In my opinion, Audio Freq must demonstrate that he—not someone else—can use his methods and sub-methods to accurately predict the location and orientation of a known rifle shot. I have done that with my method. I expect all others to as well. Otherwise, it is impossible for anyone to know who is right and who is wrong. We need test cases. It is the only way to verify that someone actually knows what they are doing. What I hear time and time again is, “Why do all the audio analysis people always come to completely different conclusions?” This is a misconception. There is in fact remarkable agreement among those who have performed audio analysis on this case. But only those using the correct method, the crack-thump method. Myself, @AlgeistNydream , 2 other physicists, @MichaKobs , and Rob Maher all use crack-thump method and all agree the shot came most likely came from the Losee Center roof. Why then so much disagreement? Because all the disagreement is coming from those who use the wrong method, the TDOA method. I am not aware of any 2 people using TDOA who agree. @troofevades , Audio Freq, and I think ClydeMax all use TDOA and all come to completely different conclusions. So, eliminate those using TDOA and everyone agrees. Why can’t we use TDOA? Because we do not have time-synced microphones. I have heard it said many times that I must be a fed because I support the federal theory on the shooter’s location. This is nonsense because I currently seem to be the top promoter of the faked death theory. I believe a rifle was fired from the Losee Center roof into either the pond behind the Hall of Flags or into the van parked in the tunnel. The more detailed crack-thump analysis places it in the van. Just because I agree with the State on one thing does not mean I agree with them on all things. I don’t. Audio Freq’s claim that this would have been heard a certain way has not been demonstrated. So it is not an evidenced critique. My crack-thump “guess and check” method is habitually criticized for bias. The idea is that you have to plug in your own presuppositions into it, and you can get it to say you are right no matter what. The method consists of a guess as to the rifle location/orientation/bullet type, time values taken from the audio recordings (time delays between supersonic crack and the muzzle blast), and time values produced by a mathematical and/or 3D reconstruction of the acoustic event. We then compare the measured values to the predicted values to assess how close the guess was. So yes, it is a guess and check method, but I am only able to manipulate rifle settings during the procedure. The measured values are permanent and the predicted values are generated automatically based on my rifle settings. If I guess the correct rifle settings, the predicted values will match the measured values perfectly. With the software I developed live on air, I can test thousands of different guesses per minute. This dramatically reduces any bias. I consistently find that the Losee Center shooting position is by far—and by an overwhelming amount—the best way to reduce the difference between the predicted and measured values. Therefore, the method indicates the shot most likely came from there. Have I demonstrated my method can accurately predict the position of a known rifle? Yes. I did that with @Unzapped’s test fire data from his field. I can prove my method actually works.
LouisianaGirl (Tara)@LouisianaGirl42

twitter.com/i/spaces/1vJpP…

English
3
2
10
25.2K