Monday, 29 January 2018

Barking Mad - the Howling at the Moon years

Well, mateys, she has finally posted her excuses, after taking all weekend to desperately try to come up with some. And here they are.

We are quite chiding ourselves for 2 reasons. One, because we missed that passage on the Oesterhelweg paper and second because we jumped the gun, which we pride ourselves in not doing it. We keep telling people to let information to sink before reacting and we did just that.
You can't help being thick as pigshit. We understand. 

Why our brains missed out that passage has no excuse.
No, it doesn't.  

If the phrase “searches of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects, ilicited no signals from any of the cadaver dogs” meant, as Insane says it does, that there were no false positives to ANY and ALL contaminated by living sample squares” then why did the scientists include the words “contaminated by living” in the first and second lines of Table 1 – Signalling behavior in interconnection to the time of contamination?
Because, my illiterate friend, that is how results of a study are recorded. One records the negatives as well as the positives. But I shall put the word out in the scientific community to see if we can make it easier for menopausal dingbats with a swinging fixation. 

That table states clearly that there were 3 experimental false positives for “uncontaminated or contaminated by living/false positive”. Why not just say “uncontaminated”?
Because it's a table recording the results. Do try to keep up, dear. 

After all, according to Insane’s reasoning, supposedly there were no false positives for ANY and ALL contaminated by living so why include that piece of information, the “contaminated by the living”, twice in the table?
Because of science, dear. 

Because they are words which give the reader different type of information. Both speak of contaminated samples by living but they are speaking about different things.
No they are not. 

The key words are “control (alive) subjects” with particular emphasis on the word “control”.
Oh really? 

To understand what is in question we will use a diagnostics lab equipment. To make sure it’s producing valid results, it must first undergo a control procedure. A sample with a pre-known result is used and tested. If it returns a result within the acceptable range then it is good to go and tests on human samples is done.
This is called 'calibration' and has nothing whatsoever to do with this study. 

If on the other hand, it doesn’t return an acceptable result, the technical staff will introduce the modifications they think they should and another control is done. Only when the equipment passes these tests can the human samples be tested by it as the results it produces have been scientifically validated.
Not 'control', dear. Calibration. You are mixing up two entirely different things. 

This is for the reader to understand the concept of control within a scientific experiment: to certify that things are according to all required scientific standards so that the experiment at the end of it all, all can be validated scientifically.
No - that's calibration, Chuckles. But nice try. Were you up all night? 

And it was during this initial procedure, the control before the experiment to make sure its results could be validated at the end, that no false positives happened on “of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects”.
Nope. Complete bollocks. The methodology is all in the paper and there is no such 'initial procedure'.  

From what we have understood from the paper, the experiment used 40 squares:
- 32 squares placed under [there goes your gaseous again, Insane] bodies, of which, 24 squares were exposed for 10 mins and 8 squares exposed for 2 mins;
Wrapped body, dear. No contact made. 

''The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse.''

All in the paper you are supposed to have read.
- 8 squares uncontaminated or contaminated by something living human “wet” which we don’t know what it was.
Nothing 'wet' was used. The paper makes that very clear 

During the experiment, K returned 4 false positives on the last 8. That is what is stated on the table. To “uncontaminated/contaminated by living samples”.

However, before the experiment, as we said a control of it was made.
No, this is a complete falsehood and utter invention. And the stupid cow means 'calibration', not control. 
It’s a scientific standard procedure.
Yes it is. Which was neither required nor conducted. 
As this paper is a synopsis and not the detailed study and is meant to be read by the scientific community, it seems the authors did not find it necessary to detail this control.
No, this is the complete paper and not the synopsis. There was no calibration required or performed. 
For some reason, they found it of interest only to say to say that of the contaminated by living squares used in the control, no false positives happened.
No, they reported all the results. 

From it, we see that other squares, other than the 40 mentioned above that were used exclusively for the experiment itself, were used in the control.
You don't have a clue, do you? 

This only reinforces what we have said, that the likelihood of the false positives within the experiment were for substances K was trained to signal. But as we said in post, that cannot be ascertained.
It is the direct opposite of what you have said 

We see no reason to alter a single word of the post because of this.
That's because you are terribly, painfully stupid, Textusa.

I am happy to take anyone through the methodology of the study and explain any of the results. It's not actually a complicated design, but it's clearly too complicated for Textusa who is a famous idiot.

If anyone would like further explanation, leave a message in the comment box, you can do so anonymously.

This further load of bullshit from her just confirms that she is a liar. She doesn't understand the paper, she made a colossal error and hasn't the grace to apologise 


She's back again  - I left a comment which she hasn't published, but she is still trying to squirm out of it. Here's the latest

To further clarify things, when we say above "a sample with a pre-known result is used and tested", that is called a control.

That is what was shown to the dogs. Samples with known results, or in the case, squares with contamination (or absence of it) known to all present and were to participate in the experiment.

That way, everyone could see what would be a correct reaction to each, everyone could clear up any doubt about what was the appropriate behaviour by the dog and by the handler to each one of the possible samples.

To the control samples contaminated by the living, no dog, including K, returned a false positive.
Let's try again, shall we?

Here is how the study was designed:

There is one consignment of tiles, split into three batches. All are kept in sealed, airtight containers

One batch is the control batch. Nothing is done to this batch at all. This is the equivalent of a placebo in a drug trial.

A second batch is exposed to non-direct contact with a cadaver, for either 2 or 10 minutes. We'll call these the 'contaminated by cadaver' batch.

A third batch is exposed to non-direct contact with a living person, in identical conditions - which in this case means wrapped in a cotton blanket, any punctures etc covered (full description is in the paper)

The squares are then all sealed in individual jars.

So - some jars contain a square exposed to cadaver odour

       some jars contain a square exposed to odour from a living person
       some jars contain a square which has not been exposed to either

The dogs were then allowed to perform a number of searches and the results recorded

The dog should only react to those jars containing a square exposed to cadaver odour.
However, in the study, there were four false positive alerts to the last category - uncontaminated squares, exposed to neither odour, living or dead.

Textusa started by claiming that all the false positive alerts were to 'contaminated by living' squares, despite the fact that, as she now admits, the paper clearly states this was not the case.

She is now falsely claiming that the false alerts took place not during the study, but during some mysterious process prior to the study, which she describes as a ''control'' although what she describes is a process of ''calibration''

There WAS NO such process.

She claims it was left out of the paper because ''it is just a synopsis''

IT IS NOT a synopsis - it is the full text of the paper.

There was no calibration as none was required. The whole study was to determine the accuracy of the dogs; in effect, what is being calibrated is the dogs!

I do not expect Textusa to understand all the language used in a scientific paper, but if she doesn't, then she shouldn't use it and she certainly cannot just make up stuff to suit her agenda

A little postscript:

The demented fraud has the sheer brass neck to demand sources and apologies! So here is my response to her, which she definitely won't print

There is an expression, Maria, which says, "When you are in a hole, stop digging"

You should have stopped digging a long time ago, dear.

No lab returned a positive result for blood via any swab or any method. Do feel free to produce evidence to the contrary, if you think you can. (Hint - you can't)

As for your request for a name, you can sincerely go fuck yourself, preferably with a porcupine, and with considerable vigor. 

Evening all!
She really doesn't know when to stop, does she?

Here is her latest:

We have one other question for Insane, the self-proclaimed scientist.
I am not a ''self-proclaimed'' scientist. Unlike Textusa, I have actual qualifications. 

As our readers know by now, he, according to himself, has superior knowledge on all subjects, but particularly on what concerns blood and cadaver scent.

He has condescended to explain to us, the ignorant masses, how EXACTLY (according to him that is) the Oesterhelweg paper experiment happened:
Because you evidently didn't understand it, or you lied, claiming that mysterious procedures took place and the authors left them out

She then copies and pastes my description of the study method from above, so I'll delete most of that and just leave the relevant bit. 

Remember, these are his words, not ours.

Taking into account that, according to him batch one was the control batch with nothing on them at all – “One batch is the control batch. Nothing is done to this batch at all. This is the equivalent of a placebo in a drug trial” – was it possible for the paper to say “Searches of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects, ilicited no signals from any of the cadaver dogs”
It is not clear here if she is making a statement or asking a question. There is no 'according to me' about it - that is the method. But I think the next line clears it up 

How is it possible to have false positives from something that didn't exist, according to Insane?
Er - that's what a false positive is, you waste of human skin. A positive reaction where one should not have occurred, ie. the dog alerted to the target scent, but the jar contained an uncontaminated square.

Maria, if you don't even know what a false positive is, why are you writing about it?  


  1. Textusa occasionally hits the odd nail on the head but invariably then draws the wrong conclusions and totally fails to connect fact A to fact B. She once published an article about the use of organisations specialising in swaying public opinion in Portugal. Then totally failed to connect Clarrie boasting at the end of his hilarious Dubai power-point presentation that they'd spent a lot of money and time on employing such firms and were indeed doing it right then and there. Spending the Fund money on fake publicity. Meanwhile, in Textusa land, how's the esplanade doing? Still suffering from inadequateness?

    1. I don't think we can ever underestimate the inadequacy of that esplanade, or the effect it may have on future generations.

      Textusa's main problem is her dishonesty. She reminds me a little of Donald Trump - an utterly preposterous figure of ridicule to anyone with half a brain, but with a faithful following of halfwits, simpletons and people whose parents really shouldn't have married their cousin. They accept her garbage without challenge as they simply don't know any better and this allows her to lie to them, manipulate them and abuse their trust.

  2. Her 9 year old theory.

    1. Yep. Completely nuts. God knows what Joana Morais thought she was doing by publishing it


Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.

Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email