Tea-Partiers Spit on "nigger" and "faggot" Congress Critters

[Plane]

<<All that is required is that the recording microphone be closer to the shouter than the shoutee and there is not a way that the words intelligable to the shoutee could be unintelligable to the microphone closer to the sorce.>>

I think kimba also pointed out that it is also required that the mike be pointed at the speaker, did he not?

Vice President Biden asserts that this is not so.

[Michael Tee]

I think kimba also pointed out that it is also required that the mike be pointed at the speaker, did he not?

<<Vice President Biden asserts that this [kimba's point that the mike has to be pointed at the speaker] is not so.>>

Fuck does Biden know?  I'll take kimba's side on that one because common sense tells you (a) there is probably a reason why interviewers point their mikes at the speaker and (b) we've already seen how "good" the unpointed mikes are at distinguishing individual words from the general noise of the crowd.

(My vision of interviewers pointing mikes at the speaker may be a little dated - - it's taken from the opening scenes of The Parallax View, where Paula Prentiss gets all girlishly flustered doing her TV interview of the doomed but handsome Senator, sometimes forgetting to point the mike and then nervously recovering in mid-sentence.  Great performance.)

[Amianthus]

Fuck does Biden know?  I'll take kimba's side on that one because common sense tells you (a) there is probably a reason why interviewers point their mikes at the speaker and (b) we've already seen how "good" the unpointed mikes are at distinguishing individual words from the general noise of the crowd.

He knows that he was ridiculed last week for dropping the "f bomb" with an open mike nearby.

[Michael Tee]

Too bad there wasn't a shouting mob  in the background to drown it out.

[Amianthus]

Too bad there wasn't a shouting mob  in the background to drown it out.

Only the applause.

[Michael Tee]

He said BFD while they were applauding?

Guess the questions keep coming.  How close was he to the mike?   Speaking directly into it or off an an angle?  What angle?  How do you compare the background noise of applause in a closed space with the BG noise of angry shouting mob in an open space?  How to compensate for the fact that Biden was probably speaking in a conversational tone whereas the racist mob member was probably shouting?  Was Biden's mike the same technically as the mikes at the mob scene?

Waaay too many variables, IMHO.  While we already know for a fact that the mikes at the scene of the angry shouting mob were totally incapable of picking out even one single word from the din of the mob.

[Amianthus]

Speaking directly into it or off an an angle?  What angle?  How do you compare the background noise of applause in a closed space with the BG noise of angry shouting mob in an open space?

He was at an angle, and his head was behind Obama, to whom he was speaking (Obama was between Biden and the mike). Also, it was picked up by mikes in the audience as well as those at the podium (youtube has some video taken from cell phones in the audience where it fairly clear).

[sirs]

d'oh     

[Michael Tee]

<<He was at an angle, and his head was behind Obama, to whom he was speaking (Obama was between Biden and the mike). Also, it was picked up by mikes in the audience as well as those at the podium (youtube has some video taken from cell phones in the audience where it fairly clear).>>

Well there's obviously way too many variables and unknowns in Biden's situation to be of any useful comparison with the mikes in the crowd.

[sirs]

[Plane]

<<He was at an angle, and his head was behind Obama, to whom he was speaking (Obama was between Biden and the mike). Also, it was picked up by mikes in the audience as well as those at the podium (youtube has some video taken from cell phones in the audience where it fairly clear).>>

Well there's obviously way too many variables and unknowns in Biden's situation to be of any useful comparison with the mikes in the crowd.

Depends on what you mean.


Most of the diffrences are things that would make catching Bidens  Single Whisper harder to catch than the fifteen "shouted " "n" words.

The one variable that would make the Outdoor "N"s tougher to catch than the indoor "F" is the background noise being higher .

But this variable would necessacerily be equally against the hearing of intelligable words by the humans who claimed to have heard them.

I beleive you have already admitted that all of the other words spoken or shouted by the croud ,disapeared into the croud sounds and became impossible to interpret .

Too much ambient noise can mask a lot of words and make the noise to signal ratio too high to allow the understanding of  words.


This is just as true for human beings alone as it is for human beings enhanced with electronic devices and for recording devices.


When assulted with "white noise" the human brain is able to fill in the gaps and attempt to make sense of the randomness. This  Phenominon is so common that there is little reason to doubt it as a likely explanation for the hearing of shouts that no one could record.

[Michael Tee]

The variables are level of ambient crowd noise, mike quality and mike direction relative to the speaker.  Nobody has even laid out the variables for one scenario, let alone both.  It's absolutely useless to use the Biden "capture" as evidence either way in the Lewis situation, except that we know for a fact that no mike in the Lewis scenario was capable of capturing a single word from the crowd, due to ambient crowd noise.  End of story.

[Plane]

"...except that we know for a fact that no mike in the Lewis scenario was capable of capturing a single word from the crowd, due to ambient crowd noise.  End of story."

This is you admitting that the earwitness testimony cannot be reliable.

Not a single word was intelligable, in spite of several mikes being present you have been admitting this all along.

[Michael Tee]

<<This is you admitting that the earwitness testimony cannot be reliable.

<<Not a single word was intelligable, in spite of several mikes being present you have been admitting this all along.>>

Don't you see that you have just assumed the superiority of the mikes being used, over the human ear?  Can't you admit the possibility that no mike could pick out a single word from the din but that a human ear could easily do so at close quarters?  Anyone who uses a hearing aid could tell you as much.

An additional flaw in your logic is that you have made the wildest assumptions - - that mikes were "everywhere;"  that they were pointed in "every direction."  You just can't back that up, and it seems on its face to be absurd.  It does not gibe with photographic evidence of the scene. 

What you need to prove is (a) that there was a mike positioned right beside each ear of each of the FIVE eyewitnesses who heard the N-word; (b) that each of the mikes was oriented in the same directional axis as the ear that it was next to; (c) that each mike was superior to the ear it was next to in its ability to pick individual words out of the crowd's noise; and (d) that none of the mikes had picked up what the witnesses had claimed to hearl  You can't even come close.

[BT]

There are two problems with the logic in this thread.

1. That if the words were uttered that it reflects in any way on the tea partiers as a whole.

and

2. That the CBC is singled out as a target of any tea party ire.

Labeling folks as racist is a well worn demonization tactic, doesn't matter if the charges are true, what it does is deflect from the real issues and garner sympathy for those with no realistic responses to the issues raised.