Monday, 22 January 2018

Liar, liar pants on fire.

This is another comment Textusa refused to publish. She does that when she has no response. She has been claiming that cadaver dogs never give a false positive. This is, of course, bullshit. The rate of false positives and false negatives, when studied in controlled conditions, is very low, but they DO occur, and to pretend otherwise is simply wrong. 

As usual, your paranoia is running rampant, Textusa. I'm not your anonymous poster. He is right, however.

Table 1
Signaling behavior in interconnection to the time of contamination
Contamination time/signaling ‘‘B.’’ ‘‘K.’’ ‘‘L.’’ Total
Uncontaminated or contaminated by living person/correct negative 26 43 46 115
Uncontaminated or contaminated by living/false positive 0 3 0 3
2 min/correct positive 9 27 12 48
2 min/false positive 0 0 0 0
2 min/false negative 3 1 4 8
10 min/correct positive 40 60 76 176
10 min/false positive 0 1 0 1
10 min/false negative 0 3 0 3
Total 78 138 138 354

Now - if you were as informed as you like to claim you are, you would recognise those results, taken from a well-respected published paper.

As you will also see, even with the loss of formatting, false positives were recorded several times. This was using fully trained, certified dogs.

Stop pretending you know what you are talking about. You don't. You're a con-artist; nothing more, nothing less.

If she had any idea what she was talking about, she would immediately recognise those results; anyone with an understanding of cadaver dogs would be familiar with them. But remember, this is the thick bitch who claimed that Madeleine's body would be covered in an oily sheen of cadaverine. 

Stupid cow. 


  1. "This is, of course, bullshit. The rate of false positives and false negatives, when studied in controlled conditions, is very low, but they DO occur, and to pretend otherwise is simply wrong."

    I agree.

    It's good to see you back in action.

    Thank you.

    Ag (= Agnostico)

  2. You two are just perverts

    1. Succinctly to the point, NT. I agree with you once again.

      Thank you.


    2. As I said: Ag/DL and NT two perverts in a pod.

    3. Is that it, then? That's your full repertoire?
      Do fuck off, dear; you're boring me

    4. My full repetitive? Hah. The irony.

    5. Repertoire, you ignoramus. Now, either contribute to the discussion or get fucked. Your choice, shitforbrains.

    6. Oy vey! at 2:49

      Your sarcasm, humour and freedom of expression are very much appreciated in my household, NT.

      Ag :D

    7. Thanks, Ag :D
      In fairness, some of the credit should go to Textusa - she is a rich source of material. Mad as an entire international shipping container full of frogs, obviously.

  3. Not at all, NT, not at all. The pleasure of reading your masterpieces is entirely mine.

    Re ↑ Credit where credit is due indeed. Your fairness and generosity are legendary, but I hardly need to tell you that. Obviously! :D


    1. How’s the leg?

    2. Can you be a bit more specific? My leg, Ag's leg, a table leg, or was it a bog-standard "I'm a bit of a stalker" post?

    3. Perhaps your guest was referring to some ‘pulling’, NT? Ostensibly posted in reply to my post, the question could have been with regard to my ‘leg’.

      My leg is fine, ‘02:39’. Thanks for asking. Come back soon.



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